This article contains Indic text. Without proper rendering support,
you may see question marks or boxes, misplaced vowels or missing
conjuncts instead of Indic text.

AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta (/ədˈvaɪtə vɛˈdɑːntə/; Sanskrit:
अद्वैत वेदान्त, IAST:
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedānta,
literally, "not-two"), originally known as Puruṣavāda,[1][note 1]
is a school of
HinduHindu philosophy and religious practice, and one of the
classic Indian paths to spiritual realization.[2] The term Advaita
refers to its idea that the soul (true Self, Atman) is the same as the
highest metaphysical
RealityReality (Brahman). The followers of this school
are known as
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedantins, or just Advaitins,[3] and they seek
spiritual liberation through acquiring vidyā (knowledge)[4] of one's
true identity as Atman, and the identity of Atman and
Brahman.[5][6][7]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta traces its roots in the oldest Upanishads. It relies
on three textual sources called the Prasthanatrayi. It gives "a
unifying interpretation of the whole body of Upanishads",[8] the
BrahmaBrahma Sutras, and the Bhagavad Gita.[9][10]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta is the
oldest extant sub-school of Vedanta,[note 2] which is one of the six
orthodox (āstika)
HinduHindu philosophies (darśana). Although its roots
trace back to the 1st millennium BCE, the most prominent exponent of
the
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta is considered by the tradition to be 8th century
scholar Adi Shankara.[11][12][13]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta emphasizes Jivanmukti, the idea that moksha (freedom,
liberation) is achievable in this life in contrast to Indian
philosophies that emphasize videhamukti, or moksha after
death.[14][15] The school uses concepts such as Brahman, Atman, Maya,
Avidya, meditation and others that are found in major Indian religious
traditions,[10][16][17] but interprets them in its own way for its
theories of moksha.[18][19]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta is one of the most studied
and most influential schools of classical Indian thought.[20][21][22]
Many scholars describe it as a form of monism,[23][24][25] others
describe the
AdvaitaAdvaita philosophy as non-dualistic.[26][27]
AdvaitaAdvaita influenced and was influenced by various traditions and texts
of
HinduHindu philosophies such as Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, other sub-schools
of Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, the Puranas, the Agamas, other
sub-schools of Vedanta, as well as social movements such as the Bhakti
movement.[28][29][30] Beyond Hinduism,
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta interacted and
developed with the other traditions of India such as
JainismJainism and
Buddhism.[31]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta texts espouse a spectrum of views from
idealism, including illusionism, to realist or nearly realist
positions expressed in the early works of Shankara.[32] In modern
times, its views appear in various Neo-
VedantaVedanta movements.[33] It has
been termed as the paradigmatic example of
HinduHindu spirituality.[34][35]

Etymology and nomenclature[edit]
The
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta school has been historically referred to by
various names, such as Advaita-vada (speaker of Advaita),
Abheda-darshana (view of non-difference), Dvaita-vada-pratisedha
(denial of dual distinctions), and Kevala-dvaita (non-dualism of the
isolated).[36]
According to Richard King, a professor of Buddhist and Asian studies,
the term
AdvaitaAdvaita first occurs in a recognizably Vedantic context in
the prose of Mandukya Upanishad.[36] In contrast, according to Frits
Staal, a professor of Philosophy specializing in
SanskritSanskrit and Vedic
studies, the word
AdvaitaAdvaita is from the Vedic era, and the Vedic sage
YajnavalkyaYajnavalkya (8th or 7th-century BCE[37][38]) is credited to be the one
who coined it.[39] Stephen Phillips, a professor of philosophy and
Asian studies, translates the
AdvaitaAdvaita containing verse excerpt in
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, as follows:

Darśana (philosophy) - central concerns[edit]
Further information:
HinduHindu philosophy
AdvaitaAdvaita is a subschool of Vedanta, the latter being one of the six
classical
HinduHindu darśanas. It, like nearly all these
philosophies,[note 4] has an integrated body of textual
interpretations and religious practices for what
HinduismHinduism considers
four proper aims of life: virtue (dharma), material prosperity
(artha), desire (kama) and the fourth and final aim being moksha, the
spiritual liberation or release from cycles of rebirth
(samsara).[43][44] Traditional
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta centers on the study of
the sruti especially the Principal Upanishads, along with the Brahma
Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.[45][46]
Within the
VedantaVedanta tradition of
HinduismHinduism are many sub-schools, of
which
AdvaitaAdvaita is one. Unlike Buddhism, but like Jainism, all Vedanta
schools consider the existence of Atman (real self, soul) as
self-evident.[47][48] The
VedantaVedanta tradition also posits the concept of
BrahmanBrahman as the eternal, unchanging metaphysical reality. The
sub-schools of
VedantaVedanta disagree on the relation between Atman and
Brahman. The
AdvaitaAdvaita darsana considers them to be identical.[49][5][6]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta believes that the knowledge of one's true self or
Atman is liberating.[50] Along with self-knowledge,[51] it teaches
that moksha can be achieved by the correct understanding of one's true
identity as Ātman, the dispassionate and unmoveable observer, and the
identity of Ātman and Brahman.[52]
The process of acquiring this knowledge entails realising that one’s
True Self, the Atman, is essentially the same as Brahman. This is
achieved through what Sankara refers to as anubhava, immediate
intuition. Sankara contends that this direct awareness is
construction-free, and not construction-filled. Self-knowledge is,
therefore, not seen as an awareness of Brahman, but instead an
awareness that is Brahman, since one will transcend any form of
duality in this state of consciousness.[53]
Correct knowledge, which destroys avidya, psychological and perceptual
errors related to Atman and Brahman,[54] is obtained through three
stages of practice, sravana (hearing), manana (thinking) and
nididhyasana (meditation).[55]
The
VedantaVedanta tradition of
HinduismHinduism rejects the dualism of Samkhya. The
SamkhyaSamkhya school of
HinduHindu thought proposes two metaphysical realities,
namely
Purusha (spirit) and
PrakritiPrakriti (inert primal matter), then
states that
Purusha is the efficient cause of all existence while
PrakritiPrakriti is its material cause.[56] Advaita, like all
VedantaVedanta schools,
states that
BrahmanBrahman is both the efficient and the material cause,
"that from which the origination, subsistence, and dissolution of this
universe proceed." What created all existence is also present in and
reflected in all beings and inert matter, the creative principle was
and is everywhere, always.[57] This
BrahmanBrahman it postulates is
sat-cit-ananda (truth-consciousness-bliss). By accepting this
postulation, various theoretical difficulties arise which
AdvaitaAdvaita and
other
VedantaVedanta traditions offer different answers for:[58] first, how
did sat
BrahmanBrahman without any distinction become manifold universe?
second, how did cit
BrahmanBrahman create material world? third, if ananda
BrahmanBrahman is pure bliss, why did the empirical world of sufferings
arise? These are the questions that
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta thinkers have
historically attempted to answer, as did the non-
AdvaitaAdvaita schools of
Hinduism.[58]
AdvaitaAdvaita establishes its truths, in part, from the oldest Principal
UpanishadsUpanishads (sruti), the
BrahmaBrahma Sutras, the
Bhagavad GitaBhagavad Gita and numerous
other
HinduHindu texts.[10] Reason is used to support revelation, the
sruti, the ultimate source of truth.[59] Reason clarifies the truth
and removes objections, according to the
AdvaitaAdvaita school, however it
believes that pure logic cannot lead to philosophical truths and only
experience and meditative insights do. The Sruti, it believes is a
collection of experience and meditative insights about liberating
knowledge.[60] The
AdvaitaAdvaita literature also provide a criticism of
opposing systems, including the dualistic school of Hinduism, as well
as non-
HinduHindu philosophies such as Buddhism.[61]
Ideas and aims[edit]

Atman[edit]
Main article: Ātman (Hinduism)
See also: Samadhi, Buddha-nature, Sunyata, and Choiceless awareness
Ātman (IAST: ātman, Sanskrit: आत्मन्) is a central idea
in
HinduHindu philosophy and a foundational premise of
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta. It
is a
SanskritSanskrit word that means "real self" of the individual,[62][63]
"essence",[web 1] and soul.[62][64]
Ātman is the first principle in
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, along with its
concept of Brahman, with Atman being the perceptible personal
particular and
BrahmanBrahman the inferred unlimited universal, both
synonymous and interchangeable.[65] It is, to an Advaitin, the
unchanging, enduring, eternal absolute.[66][67] It is the "true self"
of an individual, a consciousness, states Sthaneshwar Timalsina, that
is "self-revealed, self-evident and self-aware (svaprakashata)".[68]
Atman, states Eliot Deutsch, is the "pure, undifferentiated, supreme
power of awareness", it is more than thought, it is a state of being,
that which is conscious and transcends subject-object divisions and
momentariness.[69]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta philosophy considers Atman as self-existent awareness,
limitless and non-dual.[70] It asserts that there is "spirit, soul,
self" (Atman) within each living entity, which are same as each other
and identical to the universal eternal Brahman.[71] It is an
experience of "oneness" which unifies all beings, in which there is
the divine in every being, in which all existence is a single Reality,
and in which there is no "divine" distinct from the individual
Atman.[72][73][74]
Atman is not the constantly changing body, not the desires, not the
emotions, not the ego, nor the dualistic mind in Advaita
Vedanta.[75][76][77] It is the introspective, inwardly self-conscious
"on-looker" (saksi).[78] To Advaitins, human beings, in a state of
unawareness and ignorance, see their "I-ness" as different than the
being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice,
division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of
distinctiveness.[79][80][81]
Brahman[edit]
Main articles:
BrahmanBrahman and Satcitananda
According to
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta,
BrahmanBrahman is the highest
Reality,[82][83][84] That which is unborn and unchanging,[83][85] and
"not sublatable",[82] and cannot be superseded by a still higher
reality.[86][note 5][note 6] Other than Brahman, everything else,
including the universe, material objects and individuals, are
ever-changing and therefore maya.
BrahmanBrahman is Paramarthika Satyam,
"Absolute Truth",[101] and

the true Self, pure consciousness ... the only
RealityReality (sat),
since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since
It is the one thing that is not sublatable".[82]

In Advaita,
BrahmanBrahman is the substrate and cause of all
changes.[102][85]
BrahmanBrahman is considered to be the material cause[note
7] and the efficient cause[note 8] of all that exists.[84][103][104]
BrahmanBrahman is the "primordial reality that creates, maintains and
withdraws within it the universe."[92] It is the "creative principle
which lies realized in the whole world".[105]
Advaita's Upanishadic roots state Brahman's qualities[note 9] to be
Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[106][107] It means "true
being-consciousness-bliss," [108][109] or "Eternal Bliss
Consciousness".[110]
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara held that satcitananda is identical
with
BrahmanBrahman and Atman.[108] The Advaitin scholar Madhusudana
Sarasvati explained
BrahmanBrahman as the
RealityReality that is simultaneously an
absence of falsity (sat), absence of ignorance (cit), and absence of
sorrow/self-limitation (ananda).[108] According to Adi Shankara, the
knowledge of
BrahmanBrahman that
ShrutiShruti provides cannot be obtained in any
other means besides self inquiry.[111]
PuruṣārthaPuruṣārtha - the four goals of human life[edit]
Advaita, like other schools, accepts
PuruṣārthaPuruṣārtha - the four goals of
human life as natural and proper:[112]

Dharma: the right way to life, the "duties and obligations of the
individual toward himself and the society as well as those of the
society toward the individual";[113]
Artha: the means to support and sustain one's life;
Kāma: pleasure and enjoyment;
Mokṣa: liberation, release.

Of these, much of the
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta philosophy focuses on the last,
gaining liberation in one's current life.[114] The first three are
discussed and encouraged by Advaitins, but usually in the context of
knowing
BrahmanBrahman and Self-realization.[115]
MokshaMoksha - liberation[edit]
See also: Jnana, Prajna, and Prajñānam Brahma
The soteriological goal, in Advaita, is to gain self-knowledge and
complete understanding of the identity of Atman and Brahman. Correct
knowledge of Atman and
BrahmanBrahman leads dissolution of all dualistic
tendencies and to liberation,[note 10]
MokshaMoksha is attained by realizing
one's true identity as Ātman, and the identity of Atman and Brahman,
the complete understanding of one's real nature as
BrahmanBrahman in this
life.[5] This is stated by Shankara as follows:

I am other than name, form and action.
My nature is ever free!
I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.
I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.

According to
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, liberation can be achieved while living,
and is called Jivanmukti.[116] The Atman-knowledge, that is the
knowledge of true Self and its relationship to
BrahmanBrahman is central to
this liberation in
AdvaitaAdvaita thought.[note 11] Atman-knowledge, to
Advaitins, is that state of full awareness, liberation and freedom
which overcomes dualities at all levels, realizing the divine within
oneself, the divine in others and all beings, the non-dual Oneness,
that
BrahmanBrahman is in everything, and everything is Brahman.[70][71][117]
According to Rambachan, in Advaita, this state of liberating
self-knowledge includes and leads to the understanding that "the self
is the self of all, the knower of self sees the self in all beings and
all beings in the self."[74]
Jivanmukta[edit]
In
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, the interest is not in liberation in after life,
but in one's current life.[118] This school holds that liberation can
be achieved while living, and a person who achieves this is called a
Jivanmukta.[116][119]
The concept of
JivanmuktiJivanmukti of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta contrasts with
Videhamukti (moksha from samsara after death) in theistic sub-schools
of Vedanta.[120]
JivanmuktiJivanmukti is a state that transforms the nature,
attributes and behaviors of an individual, after which the liberated
individual shows attributes such as:[121]

he is not bothered by disrespect and endures cruel words, treats
others with respect regardless of how others treat him;
when confronted by an angry person he does not return anger, instead
replies with soft and kind words;
even if tortured, he speaks and trusts the truth;
he does not crave for blessings or expect praise from others;
he never injures or harms any life or being (ahimsa), he is intent in
the welfare of all beings;
he is as comfortable being alone as in the presence of others;
he is as comfortable with a bowl, at the foot of a tree in tattered
robe without help, as when he is in a mithuna (union of mendicants),
grama (village) and nagara (city);
he doesn’t care about or wear sikha (tuft of hair on the back of
head for religious reasons), nor the holy thread across his body. To
him, knowledge is sikha, knowledge is the holy thread, knowledge alone
is supreme. Outer appearances and rituals do not matter to him, only
knowledge matters;
for him there is no invocation nor dismissal of deities, no mantra nor
non-mantra, no prostrations nor worship of gods, goddess or ancestors,
nothing other than knowledge of Self;
he is humble, high spirited, of clear and steady mind,
straightforward, compassionate, patient, indifferent, courageous,
speaks firmly and with sweet words.

Vidya,
SvādhyāyaSvādhyāya and Anubhava[edit]
Main article: Svādhyāya
SrutiSruti (scriptures), proper reasoning and meditation are the main
sources of knowledge (vidya) for the
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta
tradition.[122][123][55] It teaches that correct knowledge of Atman
and
BrahmanBrahman is achievable by svādhyāya,[124] study of the self and
of the Vedic texts, and three stages of practice: sravana (perception,
hearing), manana (thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation),[55] a
three-step methodology that is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of
the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.[125][126]
Sravana literally means hearing, and broadly refers to perception and
observations typically aided by a counsellor or teacher (guru),[127]
wherein the Advaitin listens and discusses the ideas, concepts,
questions and answers.[55][125] Manana refers to thinking on these
discussions and contemplating over the various ideas based on
svadhyaya and sravana.[125][127][128]
NididhyāsanaNididhyāsana refers to
meditation, realization and consequent conviction of the truths,
non-duality and a state where there is a fusion of thought and action,
knowing and being.[129][125] Bilimoria states that these three stages
of
AdvaitaAdvaita practice can be viewed as sadhana practice that unifies
YogaYoga and
KarmaKarma ideas, and was most likely derived from these older
traditions.[130][127]
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara uses anubhava interchangeably with pratipatta,
"understanding".[131] Dalal and others state that anubhava does not
center around some sort of "mystical experience," but around the
correct knowledge of Brahman.[123][132] Nikhalananda states that
(knowledge of) Atman and
BrahmanBrahman can only be reached by buddhi,
"reason,"[133] stating that mysticism is a kind of intuitive
knowledge, while buddhi is the highest means of attaining
knowledge.[134]
Mahavakya – The Great Sentences[edit]
Main article: Mahāvākyas
Several Mahavakyas, or "the great sentences", have Advaitic theme,
that is "the inner immortal self and the great cosmic power are one
and the same".[135]

Stages and practices[edit]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta entails more than self-inquiry or bare insight into
one's real nature,[note 14] but also includes self-restraint, textual
studies and ethical perfection. It is described in classical Advaita
books like Shankara's Upadesasahasri[140] and the Vivekachudamani,
which is also attributed to Shankara.
JnanaJnanaYogaYoga – path of practice[edit]
Main article:
JnanaJnana Yoga
Classical
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta emphasises the path of
JnanaJnana Yoga, a
progression of study and training to attain moksha.[141][142] It
consists of fourfold qualities,[143] or behavioral qualifications
(Samanyasa, Sampattis, sādhana-catustaya):[144][145][146][note 15]

Nityānitya vastu viveka (नित्यानित्य
वस्तु विवेकम्) — The ability (viveka) to
correctly discriminate between the real and eternal (nitya) and the
substance that is apparently real, aging, changing and transitory
(anitya).[144][146]
Ihāmutrārtha phala bhoga virāga
(इहाऽमुत्रार्थ फल
भोगविरागम्) — The renunciation (virāga) of
petty desires that distract the mind (artha phala bhoga), willing to
give up everything that is an obstacle to the pursuit of truth and
self-knowledge.[146][147]
Śamādi ṣatka sampatti (शमादि षट्क
सम्पत्ति) — the sixfold virtues or qualities,

Śama (mental tranquility, ability to focus the mind).[146][147]
Dama (self-restraint,[note 16] the virtue of temperance).[146][147]
UparatiUparati (dispassion, ability to be quiet and disassociated from
everything;[146] "discontinuation of religious ceremonies"[147])
Titikṣa (endurance, perseverance, ability to be patient during
demanding circumstances).[146][147]
Śraddhā (the faith in teacher and
SrutiSruti texts).[146]
Samādhāna (attention, intentness of mind).[146][147]

Mumukṣutva (मुमुक्षुत्वम्) — A positive
longing for freedom and wisdom, driven to the quest of knowledge and
understanding.[146][143]

Correct knowledge, which destroys avidya, psychological and perceptual
errors related to Atman and Brahman,[54] is obtained in jnanayoga
through three stages of practice,[145] sravana (hearing), manana
(thinking) and nididhyasana (meditation).[55] This three-step
methodology is rooted in the teachings of chapter 4 of the
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:[125][126]

Sravana, listening to the teachings of the sages on the
UpanishadsUpanishads and
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, studying the Vedantic texts, such as the Brahma
Sutras, and discussions with the guru (teacher,
counsellor);[144][127][55]
Manana, refers to thinking on these discussions and contemplating over
the various ideas based on svadhyaya and sravana.[125] It is the stage
of reflection on the teachings;[125][127]
Nididhyāsana, the stage of meditation and introspection.[146][web 3]
This stage of practice aims at realization and consequent conviction
of the truths, non-duality and a state where there is a fusion of
thought and action, knowing and being.[129][125]

Samadhi[edit]
While Shankara emphasized sravana ("hearing"), manana ("reflection")
and nididhyasana ("repeated meditation"), later texts like the
Dŗg-Dŗśya-VivekaDŗg-Dŗśya-Viveka (14th century) and Vedantasara (of Sadananda)
(15th century) added samadhi as a means to liberation, a theme that
was also emphasized by Swami Vivekananda.
Guru[edit]
Main article: Guru
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta school has traditionally had a high reverence for Guru
(teacher), and recommends that a competent
GuruGuru be sought in one's
pursuit of spirituality. However, the
GuruGuru is not mandatory in Advaita
school, states Clooney, but reading of Vedic literature and followed
by reflection is.[151] Adi Shankara, states Comans, regularly employed
compound words "such as Sastracaryopadesa (instruction by way of the
scriptures and the teacher) and Vedantacaryopadesa (instruction by way
of the
UpanishadsUpanishads and the teacher) to emphasize the importance of
Guru".[151] This reflects the
AdvaitaAdvaita tradition which holds a
competent teacher as important and essential to gaining correct
knowledge, freeing oneself from false knowledge, and to
self-realization.[152]
A guru is someone more than a teacher, traditionally a reverential
figure to the student, with the guru serving as a "counselor, who
helps mold values, shares experiential knowledge as much as literal
knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who helps
in the spiritual evolution of a student.[153] The guru, states Joel
Mlecko, is more than someone who teaches specific type of knowledge,
and includes in its scope someone who is also a "counselor, a sort of
parent of mind and soul, who helps mold values and experiential
knowledge as much as specific knowledge, an exemplar in life, an
inspirational source and who reveals the meaning of life."[153]
OntologyOntology - the nature of Being[edit]
See also:
MetaphysicsMetaphysics and Ontology

The swan is an important motif in Advaita. It symbolises two things:
first, the swan is called hamsah in
SanskritSanskrit (which becomes hamso if
the first letter in the next word is /h/). Upon repeating this hamso
indefinitely, it becomes so-aham, meaning, "I am That". Second, just
as a swan lives in a lake but its feathers are not soiled by water,
similarly a liberated Advaitin lives in this world but is not soiled
by its maya.

Levels of Reality, Truths[edit]
See also: Two truths doctrine
The classical
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta explains all reality and everything in
the experienced world to be same as the Brahman.[10] To Advaitins,
there is a unity in multiplicity, and there is no dual hierarchy of a
Creator and the created universe.[10][154] All objects, all
experiences, all matter, all consciousness, all awareness, in Advaita
philosophy is not the property but the very nature of this one
fundamental reality Brahman.[10] With this premise, the
AdvaitaAdvaita school
states that any ontological effort must presuppose a knowing self, and
this effort needs to explain all empirical experiences such as the
projected reality while one dreams during sleep, and the observed
multiplicity of living beings. This
AdvaitaAdvaita does by positing its
theory of three levels of reality,[155] the theory of two truths,[156]
and by developing and integrating these ideas with its theory of
errors (anirvacaniya khyati).[157][10]
Shankara proposes three levels of reality, using sublation as the
ontological criterion:[158][155][159]

Pāramārthika (paramartha, absolute), the
RealityReality that is
metaphysically true and ontologically accurate. It is the state of
experiencing that "which is absolutely real and into which both other
reality levels can be resolved". This reality is the highest, it can't
be sublated (assimilated) by any other.[158][160]
Vyāvahārika (vyavahara), or samvriti-saya,[161] consisting of the
empirical or pragmatical reality. It is ever changing over time, thus
empirically true at a given time and context but not metaphysically
true. It is "our world of experience, the phenomenal world that we
handle every day when we are awake". It is the level in which both
jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and
IswaraIswara are true; here,
the material world is also true but this is incomplete reality and is
sublatable.[160][162]
Prāthibhāsika (pratibhasika, apparent reality, unreality), "reality
based on imagination alone". It is the level of experience in which
the mind constructs its own reality. Well-known examples of
pratibhasika is the imaginary reality such as the "roaring of a lion"
fabricated in dreams during one's sleep, and the perception of a rope
in the dark as being a snake.[160][163][164]

AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta acknowledges and admits that from the empirical
perspective there are numerous distinctions.[165] It states that
everything and each reality has multiple perspectives, both absolute
and relative. All these are valid and true in their respective
contexts, states Advaita, but only from their respective particular
perspectives. This "absolute and relative truths" explanation,
Advaitins call as the "two truths" doctrine.[156][165][166] John
Grimes, a professor of Indian Religions specializing on Vedanta,
explains this
AdvaitaAdvaita doctrine with the example of light and
darkness.[165] From sun's perspective, it neither rises nor sets,
there is no darkness, and "all is light". From the perspective of a
person on earth, sun does rise and set, there is both light and
darkness, not "all is light", there are relative shades of light and
darkness. Both are valid realities and truths, given their
perspectives. Yet, they are contradictory. What is true from one point
of view, states Grimes, is not from another. To
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, this
does not mean there are two truths and two realities, but it only
means that the same one
RealityReality and one Truth is explained or
experienced from two different perspectives.[165][167]
As they developed these theories,
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta scholars were
influenced by some ideas from the Nyaya,
SamkhyaSamkhya and
YogaYoga schools of
HinduHindu philosophy.[168][159] These theories have not enjoyed universal
consensus among Advaitins, and various competing ontological
interpretations have flowered within the Advaita
tradition.[10][169][170]
Three states of consciousness and Turiya[edit]
See also:
Three Bodies Doctrine (Vedanta)Three Bodies Doctrine (Vedanta) and Kosha
AdvaitaAdvaita posits three states of consciousness, namely waking (jagrat),
dreaming (svapna), deep sleep (suṣupti), which are empirically
experienced by human beings,[171][172] and correspond to the Three
Bodies Doctrine:[173]

The first state is the waking state, in which we are aware of our
daily world.[174] This is the gross body.
The second state is the dreaming mind. This is the subtle body.[174]
The third state is the state of deep sleep. This is the causal
body.[174]

AdvaitaAdvaita also posits the fourth state of Turiya, which some describe as
pure consciousness, the background that underlies and transcends these
three common states of consciousness.[web 4][web 5]
Turiya is the
state of liberation, where states
AdvaitaAdvaita school, one experiences the
infinite (ananta) and non-different (advaita/abheda), that is free
from the dualistic experience, the state in which ajativada,
non-origination, is apprehended.[175] According to Candradhara Sarma,
Turiya state is where the foundational Self is realized, it is
measureless, neither cause nor effect, all prevading, without
suffering, blissful, changeless, self-luminous, real, immanent in all
things and transcendent.[176] Those who have experienced the Turiya
stage of self-consciousness have reached the pure awareness of their
own non-dual Self as one with everyone and everything, for them the
knowledge, the knower, the known becomes one, they are the
Jivanmukta.[177][178][179]
AdvaitaAdvaita traces the foundation of this ontological theory in more
ancient
SanskritSanskrit texts.[180] For example, chapters 8.7 through 8.12 of
Chandogya
UpanishadUpanishad discuss the "four states of consciousness" as
awake, dream-filled sleep, deep sleep, and beyond deep
sleep.[180][181] One of the earliest mentions of Turiya, in the Hindu
scriptures, occurs in verse 5.14.3 of the Brihadaranyaka
Upanishad.[182] The idea is also discussed in other early
Upanishads.[183]
Identity of Atman and Brahman[edit]
According to
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, Atman is identical to Brahman.[184][185]
This is expressed in the mahavakya "tat tvam asi", "thou are that."
There is "a common ground, viz. consciousness, to the individual and
Brahman."[185] Each soul, in
AdvaitaAdvaita view, is non-different from the
infinite.[186] According to Shankara, Atman and
BrahmanBrahman seem different
at the empirical level of reality, but this difference is unreal, and
at the highest level of reality they are really identical.[187]
MokshaMoksha is attained by realizing the identity of Atman and Brahman, the
complete understanding of one's real nature as
BrahmanBrahman in this
life.[5] This is frequently stated by
AdvaitaAdvaita scholars, such as
Shankara, as:

I am other than name, form and action.
My nature is ever free!
I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.
I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.

Empirical reality - illusion and ignorance[edit]
According to
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta,
BrahmanBrahman is the sole reality. The status
of the phenomenal world is an important question in
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta,
and different solutions have been proposed. The perception of the
phenomenal world as real is explained by maya (constantly changing
reality) and avidya ("ignorance"). Other than Brahman, everything
else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are
ever-changing and therefore maya.
BrahmanBrahman is Paramarthika Satyam,
"Absolute Truth",[101] and "the true Self, pure consciousness, the
only
RealityReality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of
ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable".[82]
Causality[edit]
Main article: Cause and effect in
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta
All schools of
VedantaVedanta subscribe to the theory of Satkāryavāda,[web
6] which means that the effect is pre-existent in the cause. But there
are different views on the causal relationship and the nature of the
empirical world from the perspective of metaphysical Brahman. The
BrahmaBrahma Sutras, the ancient Vedantins, most sub-schools of
Vedanta,[188][web 6] as well as
SamkhyaSamkhya school of Hindu
philosophy,[web 6] support Parinamavada, the idea that the world is a
real transformation (parinama) of Brahman.[188]
Scholars disagree on the whether
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara and his
AdvaitaAdvaita system
explained causality through vivarta.[web 6][188][189] According to
Andrew Nicholson, instead of parinama-vada, the competing causality
theory is Vivartavada, which says "the world, is merely an unreal
manifestation (vivarta) of Brahman.
Vivartavada states that although
BrahmanBrahman appears to undergo a transformation, in fact no real change
takes place. The myriad of beings are unreal manifestation, as the
only real being is Brahman, that ultimate reality which is unborn,
unchanging, and entirely without parts". The advocates of this
illusive, unreal transformation based causality theory, states
Nicholson, have been the Advaitins, the followers of Shankara.[188]
"Although the world can be described as conventionally real", adds
Nicholson, "the Advaitins claim that all of Brahman’s effects must
ultimately be acknowledged as unreal before the individual self can be
liberated".[web 6]
However, other scholars such as Hajime Nakamura and Paul Hacker
disagree. Hacker and others state that
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara did not advocate
Vivartavada, and his explanations are "remote from any connotation of
illusion". According to these scholars, it was the 13th century
scholar Prakasatman who gave a definition to Vivarta, and it is
Prakasatman's theory that is sometimes misunderstood as Adi Shankara's
position.[189][note 17] Andrew Nicholson concurs with Hacker and other
scholars, adding that the vivarta-vada isn't Shankara's theory, that
Shankara's ideas appear closer to parinama-vada, and the vivarta
explanation likely emerged gradually in
AdvaitaAdvaita subschool later.[web
6]
According to Eliot Deutsch,
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta states that from "the
standpoint of Brahman-experience and
BrahmanBrahman itself, there is no
creation" in the absolute sense, all empirically observed creation is
relative and mere transformation of one state into another, all states
are provisional and a cause-effect driven modification.[192]
Māyā (illusion)[edit]
Main article: Maya (illusion)
The doctrine of Maya is used to explain the empirical reality in
Advaita.[193][note 18] Jiva, when conditioned by the human mind, is
subjected to experiences of a subjective nature, states Vedanta
school, which leads it to misunderstand Maya and interpret it as the
sole and final reality. Advaitins assert that the perceived world,
including people and other existence, is not what it appears to
be".[195] It is Māyā, they assert, which manifests and perpetuates a
sense of false duality or divisional plurality.[196] The empirical
manifestation is real but changing, but it obfuscates the true nature
of metaphysical
RealityReality which is never changing.
AdvaitaAdvaita school holds
that liberation is the unfettered realization and understanding of the
unchanging
RealityReality and truths – the Self, that the Self (Soul) in
oneself is same as the Self in another and the Self in everything
(Brahman).[197]
In
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta philosophy, there are two realities: Vyavaharika
(empirical reality) and Paramarthika (absolute, spiritual
Reality).[198] Māyā is the empirical reality that entangles
consciousness. Māyā has the power to create a bondage to the
empirical world, preventing the unveiling of the true, unitary
Self—the Cosmic Spirit also known as Brahman. This theory of māyā
was expounded and explained by Adi Shankara. Competing theistic Dvaita
scholars contested Shankara's theory,[199] and stated that Shankara
did not offer a theory of the relationship between
BrahmanBrahman and
Māyā.[200] A later
AdvaitaAdvaita scholar Prakasatman addressed this, by
explaining, "Maya and
BrahmanBrahman together constitute the entire universe,
just like two kinds of interwoven threads create a fabric. Maya is the
manifestation of the world, whereas Brahman, which supports Maya, is
the cause of the world."[201]
BrahmanBrahman is the sole metaphysical truth in
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, Māyā is
true in epistemological and empirical sense; however, Māyā is not
the metaphysical and spiritual truth. The spiritual truth is the truth
forever, while what is empirical truth is only true for now. Complete
knowledge of true
RealityReality includes knowing both Vyavaharika
(empirical) and Paramarthika (spiritual), the Māyā and the Brahman.
The goal of spiritual enlightenment, state Advaitins, is to realize
Brahman, realize the unity and Oneness of all reality.[198][202][117]
Avidya (ignorance)[edit]
Due to ignorance (avidyā),
BrahmanBrahman is perceived as the material world
and its objects (nama rupa vikara). According to Shankara,
BrahmanBrahman is
in reality attributeless and formless. Brahman, the highest truth and
all (Reality), does not really change; it is only our ignorance that
gives the appearance of change. Also due to avidyā, the true identity
is forgotten, and material reality, which manifests at various levels,
is mistaken as the only and true reality.
The notion of avidyā and its relationship to
BrahmanBrahman creates a
crucial philosophical issue within
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta thought: how can
avidyā appear in Brahman, since
BrahmanBrahman is pure consciousness?[203]
Sengaku Mayeda writes, in his commentary and translation of Adi
Shankara's Upadesasahasri:

Certainly the most crucial problem which Sankara left for his
followers is that of avidyā. If the concept is logically analysed, it
would lead the
VedantaVedanta philosophy toward dualism or nihilism and
uproot its fundamental position.[204]

To Advaitins, human beings, in a state of unawareness and ignorance of
this Universal Self, see their "I-ness" as different than the being in
others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division,
confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness.[81][205]
Subsequent Advaitins gave somewhat various explanations, from which
various
AdvaitaAdvaita schools arose.
EpistemologyEpistemology - ways of knowing[edit]
See also:
PramanaPramana and Epistemology
The ancient and medieval texts of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta and other schools of
HinduHindu philosophy discuss
PramanaPramana (epistemology). The theory of Pramana
discusses questions like how correct knowledge can be acquired; how
one knows, how one doesn't; and to what extent knowledge pertinent
about someone or something can be acquired.[206][207] Advaita
Vedānta,[208] accepts the following six kinds of
pramāṇas:[209][210]

Pratyakṣa (perception)[edit]
Pratyakṣa (प्रत्यक्षाय), perception, is of two
types: external - that arising from the interaction of five senses and
worldly objects, and internal - perception of inner sense, the
mind.[213]
AdvaitaAdvaita postulates four pre-requisites for correct
perception: 1) Indriyarthasannikarsa (direct experience by one's
sensory organ(s) with the object, whatever is being studied), 2)
Avyapadesya (non-verbal; correct perception is not through hearsay,
according to ancient Indian scholars, where one's sensory organ relies
on accepting or rejecting someone else's perception), 3) Avyabhicara
(does not wander; correct perception does not change, nor is it the
result of deception because one's sensory organ or means of
observation is drifting, defective, suspect) and 4) Vyavasayatmaka
(definite; correct perception excludes judgments of doubt, either
because of one's failure to observe all the details, or because one is
mixing inference with observation and observing what one wants to
observe, or not observing what one does not want to observe).[214] The
internal perception concepts included pratibha (intuition),
samanyalaksanapratyaksa (a form of induction from perceived specifics
to a universal), and jnanalaksanapratyaksa (a form of perception of
prior processes and previous states of a 'topic of study' by observing
its current state).[215]
Anumāṇa (inference)[edit]
Anumāṇa (अनुमान), inference, is defined as applying
reason to reach a new conclusion about truth from one or more
observations and previous understanding of truths.[216] Observing
smoke and inferring fire is an example of Anumana. This
epistemological method for gaining knowledge consists of three parts:
1) Pratijna (hypothesis), 2) Hetu (a reason), and 3) drshtanta
(examples).[217] The hypothesis must further be broken down into two
parts: 1) Sadhya (that idea which needs to proven or disproven) and 2)
Paksha (the object on which the Sadhya is predicated). The inference
is conditionally true if Sapaksha (positive examples as evidence) are
present, and if Vipaksha (negative examples as counter-evidence) are
absent. For rigor, the Indian philosophies further demand Vyapti - the
requirement that the hetu (reason) must necessarily and separately
account for the inference in "all" cases, in both sapaksha and
vipaksha.[217][218] A conditionally proven hypothesis is called a
nigamana (conclusion).[219]
Upamāṇa (comparison, analogy)[edit]
Upamāṇa (उपमान), comparison, analogy.[207][211] Some
HinduHindu schools consider it as a proper means of knowledge.[220]
Upamana, states Lochtefeld,[221] may be explained with the example of
a traveler who has never visited lands or islands with endemic
population of wildlife. He or she is told, by someone who has been
there, that in those lands you see an animal that sort of looks like a
cow, grazes like cow but is different from a cow in such and such way.
Such use of analogy and comparison is, state the Indian
epistemologists, a valid means of conditional knowledge, as it helps
the traveller identify the new animal later.[221] The subject of
comparison is formally called upameyam, the object of comparison is
called upamanam, while the attribute(s) are identified as
samanya.[222]
Arthāpatti (postulation)[edit]
Arthāpatti (अर्थापत्ति), postulation, derivation
from circumstances.[207][211] In contemporary logic, this pramana is
similar to circumstantial implication.[223] As example, if a person
left in a boat on river earlier, and the time is now past the expected
time of arrival, then the circumstances support the truth postulate
that the person has arrived. Many Indian scholars considered this
PramanaPramana as invalid or at best weak, because the boat may have gotten
delayed or diverted.[224] However, in cases such as deriving the time
of a future sunrise or sunset, this method was asserted by the
proponents to be reliable.
Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof)[edit]
Anupalabdi (अनुपलब्धि), non-perception,
negative/cognitive proof.[212]
AnupalabdhiAnupalabdhi pramana suggests that
knowing a negative, such as "there is no jug in this room" is a form
of valid knowledge. If something can be observed or inferred or proven
as non-existent or impossible, then one knows more than what one did
without such means.[225] In
AdvaitaAdvaita school of
HinduHindu philosophy, a
valid conclusion is either sadrupa (positive) or asadrupa (negative)
relation - both correct and valuable. Like other pramana, Indian
scholars refined Anupalabdi to four types: non-perception of the
cause, non-perception of the effect, non-perception of object, and
non-perception of contradiction. Only two schools of
HinduismHinduism accepted
and developed the concept "non-perception" as a pramana. Advaita
considers this method as valid and useful when the other five pramanas
fail in one's pursuit of knowledge and truth.[210][226] A variation of
Anupaladbi, called
AbhavaAbhava (अभाव) has also been posited as an
epistemic method. It means non-existence. Some scholars consider
Anupalabdi to be same as Abhava,[207] while others consider Anupalabdi
and
AbhavaAbhava as different.[226][227] Abhava-pramana has been discussed
in
AdvaitaAdvaita in the context of
Padārtha (पदार्थ, referent
of a term). A Padartha is defined as that which is simultaneously
Astitva (existent), Jneyatva (knowable) and Abhidheyatva
(nameable).[228]
AbhavaAbhava was further refined in four types, by the
schools of
HinduismHinduism that accepted it as a useful method of
epistemology: dhvamsa (termination of what existed), atyanta-abhava
(impossibility, absolute non-existence, contradiction), anyonya-abhava
(mutual negation, reciprocal absence) and pragavasa (prior, antecedent
non-existence).[210][228][229]
Śabda (relying on testimony)[edit]
Śabda (शब्द), relying on word, testimony of past or present
reliable experts.[207][212] Hiriyanna explains Sabda-pramana as a
concept which means reliable expert testimony. The schools of Hinduism
which consider it epistemically valid suggest that a human being needs
to know numerous facts, and with the limited time and energy
available, he can learn only a fraction of those facts and truths
directly.[230] He must rely on others, his parent, family, friends,
teachers, ancestors and kindred members of society to rapidly acquire
and share knowledge and thereby enrich each other's lives. This means
of gaining proper knowledge is either spoken or written, but through
Sabda (words).[230] The reliability of the source is important, and
legitimate knowledge can only come from the Sabda of reliable
sources.[212][230] The disagreement between
AdvaitaAdvaita and other schools
of
HinduismHinduism has been on how to establish reliability.[231]
Ethics[edit]
Some claim, states Deutsch, "that
AdvaitaAdvaita turns its back on all
theoretical and practical considerations of morality and, if not
unethical, is at least 'a-ethical' in character".[232] However, adds
Deutsch, ethics does have a firm place in this philosophy. Its
ideology is permeated with ethics and value questions enter into every
metaphysical and epistemological analysis, and it considers "an
independent, separate treatment of ethics are unnecessary".[232][233]
According to
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, states Deutsch, there cannot be "any
absolute moral laws, principles or duties", instead in its axiological
view Atman is "beyond good and evil", and all values result from
self-knowledge of the reality of "distinctionless Oneness" of one's
real self, every other being and all manifestations of Brahman.[234]
Advaitin ethics includes lack of craving, lack of dual distinctions
between one's own soul and another being's, good and just Karma.[235]
The values and ethics in
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta emanate from what it views as
inherent in the state of liberating self-knowledge. This state,
according to Rambachan, includes and leads to the understanding that
"the self is the self of all, the knower of self sees the self in all
beings and all beings in the self."[74] Such knowledge and
understanding of the indivisibility of one's and other's Atman,
Advaitins believe leads to "a deeper identity and affinity with all".
It does not alienate or separate an Advaitin from his or her
community, rather awakens "the truth of life's unity and
interrelatedness".[74] These ideas are exemplified in the Isha
UpanishadUpanishad – a sruti for Advaita, as follows:

One who sees all beings in the self alone, and the self of all beings,
feels no hatred by virtue of that understanding.
For the seer of oneness, who knows all beings to be the self,
where is delusion and sorrow?

Adi Shankara, a leading proponent of Advaita, in verse 1.25 to 1.26 of
his Upadeśasāhasrī, asserts that the Self-knowledge is understood
and realized when one's mind is purified by the observation of Yamas
(ethical precepts) such as
AhimsaAhimsa (non-violence, abstinence from
injuring others in body, mind and thoughts),
SatyaSatya (truth, abstinence
from falsehood),
AsteyaAsteya (abstinence from theft), Aparigraha
(abstinence from possessiveness and craving) and a simple life of
meditation and reflection.[237] Rituals and rites can help focus and
prepare the mind for the journey to Self-knowledge,[238] however,
Shankara discourages ritual worship and oblations to Deva (God),
because that assumes the Self within is different than Brahman. The
"doctrine of difference" is wrong, asserts Shankara, because, "he who
knows the
BrahmanBrahman is one and he is another, does not know
Brahman".[239]
Elsewhere, in verses 1.26-1.28, the
AdvaitaAdvaita text
UpadesasahasriUpadesasahasri states
the ethical premise of equality of all beings. Any Bheda
(discrimination), states Shankara, based on class or caste or
parentage is a mark of inner error and lack of liberating
knowledge.[240] This text states that the fully liberated person
understands and practices the ethics of non-difference.[240]

One, who is eager to realize this highest truth spoken of in the
Sruti, should rise above the fivefold form of desire: for a son, for
wealth, for this world and the next, and are the outcome of a false
reference to the Self of Varna (castes, colors, classes) and orders of
life. These references are contradictory to right knowledge, and
reasons are given by the Srutis regarding the prohibition of the
acceptance of difference. For when the knowledge that the one non-dual
Atman (Self) is beyond phenomenal existence is generated by the
scriptures and reasoning, there cannot exist a knowledge side by side
that is contradictory or contrary to it.
— Adi Shankara, Upadesha Sahasri 1.44, [241][242]

Texts[edit]
The Upanishads, the
Bhagavad GitaBhagavad Gita and
BrahmaBrahma Sutras are the central
texts of the
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta tradition, providing the truths about the
identity of Atman and
BrahmanBrahman and their changeless nature.[243][244]
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara gave a nondualist interpretation of these texts in his
commentaries. Adi Shankara's
Bhashya (commentaries) have become
central texts in the
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta philosophy, but are one among
many ancient and medieval manuscripts available or accepted in this
tradition.[13] The subsequent
AdvaitaAdvaita tradition has further elaborated
on these sruti and commentaries.
Prasthanatrayi[edit]
The
VedantaVedanta tradition provides exegeses of the Upanishads, the Brahma
Sutras, and the Bhagavadgita, collectively called the Prasthanatrayi,
literally, three sources.[9][243][244]

The Upanishads,[note 19] or
ŚrutiŚruti prasthāna; considered the Śruti
(Vedic scriptures) foundation of Vedanta.[note 20][247][248][249] Most
scholars, states Eliot Deutsch, are convinced that the
ŚrutiŚruti in
general, and the
UpanishadsUpanishads in particular, express "a very rich
diversity" of ideas, with the early
UpanishadsUpanishads such as Brihadaranyaka
UpanishadUpanishad and Chandogya
UpanishadUpanishad being more readily amenable to
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta school's interpretation than the middle or later
Upanishads.[250][251] In addition to the oldest Upanishads, states
Williams, the
SannyasaSannyasaUpanishadsUpanishads group composed in pre-Shankara times
"express a decidedly
AdvaitaAdvaita outlook".[252]
The
BrahmaBrahma Sutras, or
NyayaNyaya prasthana / Yukti prasthana; considered
the reason-based foundation of Vedanta. The
BrahmaBrahma Sutras attempted to
synthesize the teachings of the Upanishads. The diversity in the
teachings of the
UpanishadsUpanishads necessitated the systematization of these
teachings. The only extant version of this synthesis is the Brahma
Sutras of Badarayana. Like the Upanishads,
BrahmaBrahma Sutras is also an
aphoristic text, and can be interpreted as a non-theistic Advaita
VedantaVedanta text or as a theistic
DvaitaDvaitaVedantaVedanta text. This has led,
states Stephen Phillips, to its varying interpretations by scholars of
various sub-schools of Vedanta.[253] The
BrahmasutraBrahmasutra is considered by
the
AdvaitaAdvaita school as the
NyayaNyaya Prasthana (canonical base for
reasoning).[254]
The Bhagavad Gita, or
SmritiSmriti prasthāna; considered the Smriti
(remembered tradition) foundation of Vedanta.[254] It has been widely
studied by
AdvaitaAdvaita scholars, including a commentary by Adi
Shankara.[255][256]

Textual authority[edit]
The identity of Atman and Brahman, and their unchanging, eternal
nature,[257] are basic truths in
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta. The school considers
the knowledge claims in the
VedasVedas to be the crucial part of the Vedas,
not its karma-kanda (ritual injunctions).[243] The knowledge claims
about self being identical to the nature of Atman and
BrahmanBrahman are
found in the Upanishads, which
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta has regarded as
"errorless revealed truth."[243] Nevertheless, states Koller, Advaita
Vedantins did not entirely rely on revelation, but critically examined
their teachings using reason and experience, and this led them to
investigate and critique competing theories.[243]
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, like all orthodox schools of
HinduHindu philosophy,
accepts as an epistemic premise that
ŚrutiŚruti (Vedic literature) is a
reliable source of knowledge.[258][259][260] The
ŚrutiŚruti includes the
four
VedasVedas including its four layers of embedded texts - the Samhitas,
the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the early Upanishads.[261] Of these,
the
UpanishadsUpanishads are the most referred to texts in the
AdvaitaAdvaita school.
The possibility of different interpretations of the Vedic literature,
states Arvind Sharma, was recognized by ancient Indian
scholars.[262][263] The
BrahmasutraBrahmasutra (also called
VedantaVedanta Sutra,
composed in 1st millennium BCE) accepted this in verse 1.1.4 and
asserts the need for the Upanishadic teachings to be understood not in
piecemeal cherrypicked basis, rather in a unified way wherein the
ideas in the Vedic texts are harmonized with other means of knowledge
such as perception, inference and remaining pramanas.[262][254] This
theme has been central to the
AdvaitaAdvaita school, making the Brahmasutra
as a common reference and a consolidated textual authority for
Advaita.[262][264]
The Bhagavad Gita, similarly in parts can be interpreted to be a
monist
AdvaitaAdvaita text, and in other parts as theistic
DvaitaDvaita text. It
too has been widely studied by
AdvaitaAdvaita scholars, including a
commentary by Adi Shankara.[265][263]
History of
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta[edit]

AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta existed prior to
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara but found in him its
most influential expounder.[266]
Pre-Shankara
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta[edit]
Of the Vedanta-school before the composition of the
BrahmaBrahma Sutras
(400–450 CE[267]), wrote Nakamura in 1950, almost nothing is
known.[267] The two
AdvaitaAdvaita writings of pre-Shankara period, known to
scholars such as Nakamura in the first half of 20th-century, were the
Vākyapadīya, written by
Bhartṛhari (second half 5th century[268]),
and the Māndūkya-kārikā written by
GaudapadaGaudapada (7th century
CE).[267]
Scholarship after 1950 suggests that almost all
SannyasaSannyasa Upanishads
have a strong
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta outlook.[269][270][271] Six of these
SannyasaSannyasaUpanishadsUpanishads – Aruni, Kundika, Kathashruti, Paramahamsa,
Jabala and
BrahmaBrahma – were composed before the 3rd-century CE, likely
in the centuries before or after the start of the common era, states
Sprockhoff; the Asrama
UpanishadUpanishad is dated to the
3rd-century.[272][273]
The strong
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta views in these ancient texts may be, states
Patrick Olivelle, because major
HinduHindu monasteries of this period
(early 1st millennium CE) belonged to the
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta
tradition.[269]
Earliest
VedantaVedanta -
UpanishadsUpanishads and
BrahmaBrahma Sutras[edit]
Main article:
BrahmaBrahma Sutras
See also: Vedas, Upanishads, and Darsanas
The
UpanishadsUpanishads form the basic texts, of which
VedantaVedanta gives an
interpretation.[274] The
UpanishadsUpanishads do not contain "a rigorous
philosophical inquiry identifying the doctrines and formulating the
supporting arguments".[275][note 21] This philosophical inquiry was
performed by the darsanas, the various philosophical
schools.[277][note 22]
Bādarāyana's
BrahmaBrahma Sutras[edit]
The
BrahmaBrahma Sutras of Bādarāyana, also called the
VedantaVedanta Sutra,[279]
were compiled in its present form around 400–450 CE,[280] but "the
great part of the
SutraSutra must have been in existence much earlier than
that".[280] Estimates of the date of Bādarāyana's lifetime differ
between 200 BCE and 200 CE.[281]
The
BrahmaBrahmaSutraSutra is a critical study of the teachings of the
Upanishads. It was and is a guide-book for the great teachers of the
Vedantic systems.[279] Bādarāyana was not the first person to
systematise the teachings of the Upanishads.[282] He refers to seven
Vedantic teachers before him:[282]

From the way in which Bādarāyana cites the views of others it is
obvious that the teachings of the
UpanishadsUpanishads must have been analyzed
and interpreted by quite a few before him and that his systematization
of them in 555 sutras arranged in four chapters must have been the
last attempt, most probably the best.[282]

Between
BrahmaBrahma Sutras and Shankara[edit]
According to Nakamura, "there must have been an enormous number of
other writings turned out in this period, but unfortunately all of
them have been scattered or lost and have not come down to us
today".[267] In his commentaries, Shankara mentions 99 different
predecessors of his Sampradaya.[283] In the beginning of his
commentary on the Brhadaranyaka
UpanishadUpanishad Shankara salutes the
teachers of the Brahmavidya Sampradaya.[web 7] Pre-Shankara doctrines
and sayings can be traced in the works of the later schools, which
does give insight into the development of early Vedanta
philosophy.[267]
The names of various important early
VedantaVedanta thinkers have been listed
in the Siddhitraya by Yamunācārya (c.1050), the Vedārthasamgraha by
Rāmānuja (c.1050–1157), and the Yatīndramatadīpikā by
Śrīnivāsa-dāsa.[267] Combined together,[267] at least fourteen
thinkers are known to have existed between the composition of the
BrahmanBrahman Sutras and Shankara's lifetime.[267][note 23]
Although Shankara is often considered to be the founder of the Advaita
VedantaVedanta school, according to Nakamura, comparison of the known
teachings of these early Vedantins and Shankara's thought shows that
most of the characteristics of Shankara's thought "were advocated by
someone before Śankara".[284] Shankara "was the person who
synthesized the Advaita-vāda which had previously existed before
him".[284] In this synthesis, he was the rejuvenator and defender of
ancient learning.[285] He was an unequalled commentator,[285] due to
whose efforts and contributions the
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta assumed a dominant
position within Indian philosophy.[285]
GaudapadaGaudapada and Māṇḍukya Kārikā[edit]
Main article: Gaudapada

Statue of Gaudapada.

GaudapadaGaudapada (6th century)[286] was the teacher of Govinda Bhagavatpada
and the grandteacher of Shankara.
GaudapadaGaudapada uses the concepts of
AjativadaAjativada and Maya[287] to establish "that from the level of ultimate
truth the world is a cosmic illusion,"[288] and "suggests that the
whole of our waking experience is exactly the same as an illusory and
insubstantial dream."[289] In contrast,
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara insists upon a
distinction between waking experience and dreams.[289]
Mandukya Karika[edit]
GaudapadaGaudapada wrote or compiled[290] the Māṇḍukya Kārikā, also
known as the Gauḍapāda Kārikā or the Āgama Śāstra.[291] The
Māṇḍukya Kārikā is a commentary in verse form on the Mandukya
Upanishad, one of the shortest
UpanishadsUpanishads consisting of just 13 prose
sentences. Of the ancient literature related to
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, the
oldest surviving complete text is the Māṇḍukya Kārikā.[292]
Many other texts with same type of teachings and which were older than
Māṇḍukya Kārikā existed and this is unquestionable because
other scholars and their views are cited by Gaudapada, Shankara and
Anandagiri, according to Hajime Nakamura.[293]
GaudapadaGaudapada relied
particularly on Mandukya Upanishad, as well as Brihadaranyaka and
Chandogya Upanishads.[292]
The Mandukya
UpanishadUpanishad was considered to be a
ŚrutiŚruti before the era of
Adi Shankara, but not treated as particularly important.[291] In later
post-Shankara period its value became far more important, and regarded
as expressing the essence of the
UpanishadUpanishad philosophy. The entire
Karika became a key text for the
AdvaitaAdvaita school in this later
era.[294][note 24]
Shri Gaudapadacharya Math[edit]
Main article: Shri Gaudapadacharya Math
Around 740 AD
GaudapadaGaudapada founded Shri Gaudapadacharya Math[note 25],
also known as Kavaḷē maṭha. It is located in Kavale, Ponda,
Goa,[web 8] and is the oldest matha of the South Indian Saraswat
Brahmins.[297][web 9]
Adi Shankara[edit]
Main article: Adi Shankara
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara (788–820), also known as Śaṅkara
Bhagavatpādācārya and Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, represents a turning
point in the development of Vedanta.[298] After the growing influence
of
BuddhismBuddhism on Vedanta, culminating in the works of Gaudapada, Adi
Shankara gave a Vedantic character to the Buddhistic elements in these
works,[298] synthesising and rejuvenating the doctrine of
Advaita.[285] Using ideas in ancient Indian texts, Shankara
systematized the foundation for
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta in the 8th century CE,
though the school was founded many centuries earlier by
Badarayana.[299] His thematic focus extended beyond metaphysics and
soteriology, and he laid a strong emphasis on Pramanas, that is
epistemology or "means to gain knowledge, reasoning methods that
empower one to gain reliable knowledge".[citation needed] Rambachan,
for example, summarizes the widely held view on one aspect of
Shankara's epistemology before critiquing it as follows,

According to these [widely represented contemporary] studies, Shankara
only accorded a provisional validity to the knowledge gained by
inquiry into the words of the
ŚrutiŚruti (Vedas) and did not see the
latter as the unique source (pramana) of Brahmajnana. The affirmations
of the Śruti, it is argued, need to be verified and confirmed by the
knowledge gained through direct experience (anubhava) and the
authority of the Śruti, therefore, is only secondary.[265]

Sengaku Mayeda concurs, adding Shankara maintained the need for
objectivity in the process of gaining knowledge (vastutantra), and
considered subjective opinions (purushatantra) and injunctions in
ŚrutiŚruti (codanatantra) as secondary.[300] Mayeda cites Shankara's
explicit statements emphasizing epistemology (pramana-janya) in
section 1.18.133 of
UpadesasahasriUpadesasahasri and section 1.1.4 of
Brahmasutra-bhasya.[300][301]
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara cautioned against cherrypicking a phrase or verse out of
context from Vedic literature, and remarked that the Anvaya (theme or
purport) of any treatise can only be correctly understood if one
attends to the Samanvayat Tatparya Linga, that is six characteristics
of the text under consideration:

While this methodology has roots in the theoretical works of Nyaya
school of Hinduism, Shankara consolidated and applied it with his
unique exegetical method called Anvaya-Vyatireka, which states that
for proper understanding one must "accept only meanings that are
compatible with all characteristics" and "exclude meanings that are
incompatible with any".[304][305]
Hacker and Phillips note that this insight into rules of reasoning and
hierarchical emphasis on epistemic steps is "doubtlessly the
suggestion" of Shankara in Brahma-sutra, an insight that flowers in
the works of his companion and disciple Padmapada.[306] Merrell-Wolff
states that Shankara accepts
VedasVedas and
UpanishadsUpanishads as a source of
knowledge as he develops his philosophical theses, yet he never rests
his case on the ancient texts, rather proves each thesis, point by
point using pranamas (epistemology), reason and experience.[307][308]
Historical context[edit]
See also: Late-Classical Age and
HinduismHinduism Middle Ages
Shankara lived in the time of the so-called "Late classical
Hinduism",[309] which lasted from 650 to 1100 CE.[309] This era
was one of political instability that followed
Gupta dynastyGupta dynasty and King
Harsha of the 7th century CE.[310] It was a time of social
and cultural change as the ideas of Buddhism, Jainism, and various
traditions within
HinduismHinduism were competing for members.[311][312]
BuddhismBuddhism in particular influenced India's spiritual traditions in the
first 700 years of the 1st millennium CE.[310][313] Shankara and his
contemporaries made a significant contribution in understanding
BuddhismBuddhism and the ancient Vedic traditions; they then transformed the
extant ideas, particularly reforming the
VedantaVedanta tradition of
Hinduism, making it India's most important tradition for more than a
thousand years.[310]
Writings[edit]
Main article:
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara bibliography
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara is best known for his systematic reviews and commentaries
(Bhasyas) on ancient Indian texts. Shankara's masterpiece of
commentary is the Brahmasutrabhasya (literally, commentary on Brahma
Sutra), a fundamental text of the
VedantaVedanta school of Hinduism.[314] His
commentaries on ten Mukhya (principal)
UpanishadsUpanishads are also considered
authentic by scholars.[314][315] Other authentic works of Shankara
include commentaries on the
Bhagavad GitaBhagavad Gita (part of his Prasthana Trayi
Bhasya).[265]
Shankara's
Vivarana (tertiary notes) on the commentary by Vedavyasa on
Yogasutras as well as those on Apastamba Dharma-sũtras
(Adhyatama-patala-bhasya) are accepted by scholars as authentic works
of Adi Shankara.[316][317] Among the
StotraStotra (poetic works), the
Daksinamurti Stotra, Bhajagovinda Stotra, Sivanandalahari,
Carpata-panjarika, Visnu-satpadi, Harimide, Dasa-shloki, and
Krishna-staka are likely to be authentic.[316][318] He also authored
Upadesasahasri, his most important original philosophical
work.[299][317] Of other original Prakaranas (प्रकरण,
monographs, treatise), 76 works are attributed to Adi Shankara. Modern
era Indian scholars Belvalkar and Upadhyaya accept five and thirty
nine works, respectively, as authentic.[319]
Several commentaries on Nrisimha-Purvatatapaniya and Shveshvatara
UpanishadsUpanishads have been attributed to Adi Shankara, but their
authenticity is highly doubtful.[315][320] Similarly, commentaries on
several early and later
UpanishadsUpanishads attributed to Shankara are rejected
by scholars[321] as his works, and are likely works of later Advaita
VedantaVedanta scholars; these include the Kaushitaki Upanishad, Maitri
Upanishad, Kaivalya Upanishad, Paramahamsa Upanishad, Sakatayana
Upanishad, Mandala
BrahmanaBrahmana Upanishad, Maha Narayana Upanishad, and
Gopalatapaniya Upanishad.[320]
The authenticity of Shankara being the author of
Vivekacūḍāmaṇi[322] has been questioned, but scholars generally
credit it to him.[323] The authorship of Shankara of his Mandukya
UpanishadUpanishad Bhasya and his supplementary commentary on Gaudapada's
Māṇḍukya Kārikā has been disputed by Nakamura.[324] However,
other scholars state that the commentary on Mandukya, which is
actually a commentary on Madukya-Karikas by Gaudapada, may be
authentic.[316][320]
Influence of Shankara[edit]
Shankara's status in the tradition of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta is
unparallelled. He travelled all over India to help restore the study
of the Vedas.[325] His teachings and tradition form the basis of
SmartismSmartism and have influenced
Sant Mat lineages.[326] He introduced the
Pañcāyatana form of worship, the simultaneous worship of five
deities – Ganesha, Surya, Vishnu, Shiva, and Devi. Shankara
explained that all deities were but different forms of the one
Brahman, the invisible Supreme Being.[327]
Benedict Ashley credits
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara for unifying two seemingly
disparate philosophical doctrines in Hinduism, namely Atman and
Brahman.[328] Isaeva states that Shankara's influence extended to
reforming Hinduism, founding monasteries, edifying disciples,
disputing opponents, and engaging in philosophic activity that, in the
eyes of Indian tradition, helped revive "the orthodox idea of the
unity of all beings" and
VedantaVedanta thought.[329]
Some scholars doubt Shankara's early influence in India.[330]
According to King and Roodurmun, until the 10th century Shankara was
overshadowed by his older contemporary Mandana-Misra, who was
considered to be the major representative of Advaita.[331][332] Other
scholars state that the historical records for this period are
unclear, and little reliable information is known about the various
contemporaries and disciples of Shankara.[333]
Several scholars suggest that the historical fame and cultural
influence of Shankara grew centuries later, particularly during the
era of the Muslim invasions and consequent devastation of
India.[330][334] Many of Shankara's biographies were created and
published in and after the 14th century, such as the widely cited
Vidyaranya's Śankara-vijaya. Vidyaranya, also known as Madhava, who
was the 12th Jagadguru of the Śringeri Śarada Pītham from 1380 to
1386,[335] inspired the re-creation of the
HinduHindu Vijayanagara Empire
of
South IndiaSouth India in response to the devastation caused by the Islamic
Delhi Sultanate.[334][336] He and his brothers, suggest Paul Hacker
and other scholars,[330][334] wrote about Śankara as well as
extensive Advaitic commentaries on the
VedasVedas and Dharma. Vidyaranya
was a minister in the
Vijayanagara EmpireVijayanagara Empire and enjoyed royal
support,[336] and his sponsorship and methodical efforts helped
establish Shankara as a rallying symbol of values, spread historical
and cultural influence of Shankara's
VedantaVedanta philosophies, and
establish monasteries (mathas) to expand the cultural influence of
Shankara and
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta.[330]
Sureśvara and Maṇḍana Miśra[edit]
Main articles:
Sureśvara and Maṇḍana Miśra
Sureśvara (fl. 800-900 CE)[337] and
Maṇḍana Miśra were
contemporaries of Shankara,
Sureśvara often (incorrectly) being
identified with Maṇḍana Miśra.[338] Both explained Sankara "on
the basis of their personal convictions".[338]
Sureśvara has also
been credited as the founder of a pre-Shankara branch of Advaita
Vedanta.[337]
Maṇḍana Miśra was a
MimamsaMimamsa scholar and a follower of Kumarila,
but also wrote a seminal text on
AdvaitaAdvaita that has survived into the
modern era, the Brahma-siddhi.[339][340] According to tradition,
Maṇḍana Miśra and his wife were defeated by Shankara in a debate,
after which he became a follower of Shankara.[339] Yet, his attitude
toward Shankara was that of a "self-confident rival teacher of
Advaita",[341] and his influence was such that some regard the
Brahma-siddhi to have "set forth a non-Shankaran brand of
Advaita""[339] The "theory of error" set forth in this work became the
normative
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta theory of error.[342] It was Vachaspati
Misra's commentary on this work that linked it to Shankara's
teaching.[343] His influential thesis in the
AdvaitaAdvaita tradition has
been that errors are opportunities because they "lead to truth", and
full correct knowledge requires that not only should one understand
the truth but also examine and understand errors as well as what is
not truth.[344]
Hiriyanna and Kuppuswami Sastra have pointed out that
Sureśvara and
Maṇḍana Miśra had different views on various doctrinal
points:[345]

The locus of avidya:[345] according to Maṇḍana Miśra, the
individual jiva is the locus of avidya, whereas Suresvara contends
that the avidya regarding
BrahmanBrahman is located in Brahman.[345] These
two different stances are also reflected in the opposing positions of
the
BhamatiBhamati school and the
Vivarana school.[345]
Liberation: according to Maṇḍana Miśra, the knowledge that arises
from the Mahavakya is insufficient for liberation. Only the direct
realization of
BrahmaBrahma is liberating, which can only be attained by
meditation.[346] According to Suresvara, this knowledge is directly
liberating, while meditation is at best a useful aid.[341][note 26]

AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta sub-schools[edit]
After Shankara's death, several sub-schools developed. Two of them
still exist today, the
BhāmatīBhāmatī and the Vivarana.[web 10][283] Two
defunct schools are the Pancapadika and Istasiddhi, which were
replaced by Prakasatman's
Vivarana school.[348]
These schools worked out the logical implications of various Advaita
doctrines. Two of the problems they encountered were the further
interpretations of the concepts of māyā and avidya.[web 10]
PadmapadaPadmapada - Pancapadika school[edit]
PadmapadaPadmapada (c. 800 CE)[349] was a direct disciple of Shankara who wrote
the Pancapadika, a commentary on the Sankara-bhaya.[349] Padmapada
diverged from Shankara in his description of avidya, designating
prakrti as avidya or ajnana.[350]
Vachaspati Misra –
BhamatiBhamati school[edit]
Main articles:
BhamatiBhamati and Vācaspati Miśra
Vachaspati Misra (800–900 CE)[351] wrote the Brahmatattva-samiksa, a
commentary on Maṇḍana Miśra's Brahma-siddhi, which provides the
link between
Mandana Misra and Shankara[343] and attempts to harmonise
Shankara's thought with that of Mandana Misra.[web 10] According to
AdvaitaAdvaita tradition, Shankara reincarnated as Vachaspati Misra "to
popularise the
AdvaitaAdvaita System through his Bhamati".[351] Only two
works are known of Vachaspati Misra, the Brahmatattva-samiksa on
Maṇḍana Miśra's Brahma-siddhi, and his
BhamatiBhamati on the
Sankara-bhasya, Shankara's commentary on the Brahma-sutras.[343] The
name of the
BhamatiBhamati sub-school is derived from this Bhamati.[web 10]
The
BhamatiBhamati school takes an ontological approach. It sees the
JivaJiva as
the source of avidya.[web 10] It sees meditation as the main factor in
the acquirement of liberation, while the study of the
VedasVedas and
reflection are additional factors.[352]
Prakasatman -
Vivarana school[edit]
Main article: Vivarana
Prakasatman (c. 1200–1300)[348] wrote the Pancapadika-Vivarana, a
commentary on the Pancapadika by Padmapadacharya.[348] The Vivarana
lends its name to the subsequent school. According to Roodurmum,
"[H]is line of thought [...] became the leitmotif of all subsequent
developments in the evolution of the
AdvaitaAdvaita tradition."[348]
The
Vivarana school takes an epistemological approach. Prakasatman was
the first to propound the theory of mulavidya or maya as being of
"positive beginningless nature",[353] and sees
BrahmanBrahman as the source
of avidya. Critics object that
BrahmanBrahman is pure consciousness, so it
cannot be the source of avidya. Another problem is that contradictory
qualities, namely knowledge and ignorance, are attributed to
Brahman.[web 10]
Vimuktatman - Ista-Siddhi[edit]
Vimuktatman (c. 1200 CE)[354] wrote the Ista-siddhi.[354] It is one of
the four traditional siddhi, together with Mandana's Brahma-siddhi,
Suresvara's Naiskarmya-siddhi, and Madusudana's Advaita-siddhi.[355]
According to Vimuktatman, absolute
RealityReality is "pure intuitive
consciousness".[356] His school of thought was eventually replaced by
Prakasatman's
Vivarana school.[348]
Later
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta tradition[edit]
See also: Dashanami
SampradayaSampradaya and List of teachers of
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta
According to Sangeetha Menon, prominent names in the later Advaita
tradition are:[web 11]

AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta is not just a philosophical system, but also a
tradition of renunciation. Philosophy and renunciation are closely
related:[web 13]

Most of the notable authors in the advaita tradition were members of
the sannyasa tradition, and both sides of the tradition share the same
values, attitudes and metaphysics.[web 13]

Shankara organized monks under 10 names and established mathas for
them. These mathas contributed to the influence of Shankara, which was
"due to institutional factors". The mathas which he built exist until
today, and preserve the teachings and influence of Shankara, "while
the writings of other scholars before him came to be forgotten with
the passage of time".[357]
Shri Gaudapadacharya Math[edit]
Main article: Shri Gaudapadacharya Math
Around 740 CE,
GaudapadaGaudapada founded Shri Gaudapadacharya Math[note 27],
also known as Kavaḷē maṭha. It is located in Kavale, Ponda,
Goa,[web 14] and is the oldest matha of the South Indian Saraswat
Brahmins.[297][web 15]
Shankara's monastic tradition[edit]
Shankara, himself considered to be an incarnation of Shiva,[web 13]
established the Dashanami Sampradaya, organizing a section of the
Ekadandi monks under an umbrella grouping of ten names.[web 13]
Several
HinduHindu monastic and Ekadandi traditions, however, remained
outside the organisation of the Dasanāmis.[358][359][360]
Sankara organised the
HinduHindu monks of these ten sects or names under
four Maṭhas (Sanskrit: मठ) (monasteries), called the Amnaya
Mathas, with the headquarters at
DvārakāDvārakā in the West, Jagannatha
Puri in the East,
SringeriSringeri in the South and
BadrikashramaBadrikashrama in the
North.[web 13] Each math was first headed by one of his four main
disciples, and the tradition continues since then.[note 28] According
to another tradition in Kerala, after Sankara's samadhi at
Vadakkunnathan Temple, his disciples founded four mathas in Thrissur,
namely Naduvil Madhom, Thekke Madhom, Idayil Madhom and Vadakke
Madhom.
The table below gives an overview of the four Amnaya Mathas founded by
Adi Shankara, and their details.[web 16]

Monks of these ten orders differ in part in their beliefs and
practices, and a section of them is not considered to be restricted to
specific changes made by Shankara. While the dasanāmis associated
with the Sankara maths follow the procedures enumerated by Adi
Śankara, some of these orders remained partly or fully independent in
their belief and practices; and outside the official control of the
Sankara maths. The advaita sampradaya is not a
SaivaSaiva sect,[web
13][363] despite the historical links with Shaivism.[note 29]
Nevertheless, contemporary Sankaracaryas have more influence among
SaivaSaiva communities than among Vaisnava communities.[web 13]
Relationship with other forms of Vedanta[edit]
The
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta ideas, particularly of 8th century Adi Shankara,
were challenged by theistic
VedantaVedanta philosophies that emerged
centuries later, such as the 11th-century
VishishtadvaitaVishishtadvaita (qualified
nondualism) of Ramanuja, and the 14th-century
DvaitaDvaita (theistic
dualism) of Madhvacharya.[364]
Vishishtadvaita[edit]
Main article: Vishishtadvaita
Ramanuja's
VishishtadvaitaVishishtadvaita school and Shankara's
AdvaitaAdvaita school are
both nondualism
VedantaVedanta schools,[365][366] both are premised on the
assumption that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of
blissful liberation; in contrast,
MadhvacharyaMadhvacharya and his Dvaita
subschool of
VedantaVedanta believed that some souls are eternally doomed and
damned.[367][368] Shankara's theory posits that only
BrahmanBrahman and
causes are metaphysical unchanging reality, while the empirical world
(Maya) and observed effects are changing, illusive and of relative
existence.[369][370] Spiritual liberation to Shankara is the full
comprehension and realization of oneness of one's unchanging Atman
(soul) as the same as Atman in everyone else as well as being
identical to the nirguna Brahman.[366][371][372] In contrast,
Ramanuja's theory posits both
BrahmanBrahman and the world of matter are two
different absolutes, both metaphysically real, neither should be
called false or illusive, and saguna
BrahmanBrahman with attributes is also
real.[370] God, like man, states Ramanuja, has both soul and body, and
all of the world of matter is the glory of God's body.[365] The path
to
BrahmanBrahman (Vishnu), asserted Ramanuja, is devotion to godliness and
constant remembrance of the beauty and love of personal god (saguna
Brahman, Vishnu), one which ultimately leads one to the oneness with
nirguna Brahman.[365][369][370]
Shuddhadvaita[edit]
Main article: Shuddhadvaita
VallabhacharyaVallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE), the proponent of the philosophy of
ShuddhadvaitaShuddhadvaita Brahmvad enunciates that
IshvaraIshvara has created the world
without connection with any external agency such as Maya (which itself
is his power) and manifests Himself through the world.[373] That is
why shuddhadvaita is known as ‘Unmodified transformation’ or
‘Avikṛta Pariṇāmavāda’.
BrahmanBrahman or
IshvaraIshvara desired to become
many, and he became the multitude of individual souls and the world.
VallabhaVallabha recognises
BrahmanBrahman as the whole and the individual as a
‘part’ (but devoid of bliss).[374]
Dvaita[edit]
Main article: Dvaita
MadhvacharyaMadhvacharya was also a critic of
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta. Advaita's
nondualism asserted that Atman (soul) and
BrahmanBrahman are identical, there
is interconnected oneness of all souls and Brahman, and there are no
pluralities.[375][376] Madhva in contrast asserted that Atman (soul)
and
BrahmanBrahman are different, only
VishnuVishnu is the Lord (Brahman),
individual souls are also different and depend on Vishnu, and there
are pluralities.[375][376]
MadhvacharyaMadhvacharya stated that both Advaita
VedantaVedanta and
MahayanaMahayanaBuddhismBuddhism were a nihilistic school of
thought.[377]
MadhvacharyaMadhvacharya wrote four major texts, including
Upadhikhandana and Tattvadyota, primarily dedicated to criticizing
Advaita.[377]
Historical influence[edit]

Scholars are divided on the historical influence of
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta.
Some Indologists state that it is one of the most studied Hindu
philosophy and the most influential schools of classical Indian
thought.[380][21][381]
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, states Eliot Deutsch, "has
been and continues to be the most widely accepted system of thought
among philosophers in India, and it is, we believe, one of the
greatest philosophical achievements to be found in the East or the
West".[382]
Smarta Tradition[edit]
Main article: Smarta Tradition
The
Smarta traditionSmarta tradition of
HinduismHinduism is an ancient tradition,[note 30]
particularly found in south and west India, that revers all Hindu
divinities as a step in their spiritual pursuit.[384][385][386] Their
worship practice is called Panchayatana puja.[387][384] The worship
symbolically consists of five deities: Shiva, Vishnu,
DeviDevi or Durga,
SuryaSurya and an
Ishta DevataIshta Devata or any personal god of devotee's
preference.[385][388]
In the Smarta tradition,
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta ideas combined with bhakti
are its foundation.
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara is regarded as the greatest
teacher[386] and reformer of the Smarta.[389] According to Alf
Hiltebeitel, Shankara's
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta and practices became the
doctrinal unifier of previously conflicting practices with the smarta
tradition.[note 31]
Philosophically, the
Smarta traditionSmarta tradition emphasizes that all images and
statues (murti), or just five marks or any anicons on the ground, are
visibly convenient icons of spirituality saguna Brahman.[391][387] The
multiple icons are seen as multiple representations of the same idea,
rather than as distinct beings. These serve as a step and means to
realizing the abstract Ultimate
RealityReality called nirguna Brahman. The
ultimate goal in this practice is to transition past the use of icons,
then follow a philosophical and meditative path to understanding the
oneness of Atman (soul, self) and
BrahmanBrahman – as "That art
Thou".[391][392]
Other
HinduHindu traditions[edit]
Within the ancient and medieval texts of
HinduHindu traditions, such as
Vaishnavism,
ShaivismShaivism and Shaktism, the ideas of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta have
had a major influence.
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta influenced
KrishnaKrishna Vaishnavism
in the different parts of India.[393] One of its most popular text,
the Bhagavata Purana, adopts and integrates in
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta
philosophy.[394][395][396] The
Bhagavata PuranaBhagavata Purana is generally accepted
by scholars to have been composed in the second half of 1st millennium
CE.[397][398]
In the ancient and medieval literature of Shaivism, called the
Āgamas, the influence of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta is once again
prominent.[399][400][401] Of the 92 Āgamas, ten are
DvaitaDvaita texts,
eighteen are Bhedabheda, and sixty-four are
AdvaitaAdvaita texts.[402][403]
According to Natalia Isaeva, there is an evident and natural link
between 6th-century Gaudapada's
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta ideas and Kashmir
Shaivism.[404]
Shaktism, the
HinduHindu tradition where a goddess is considered identical
to Brahman, has similarly flowered from a syncretism of the monist
premises of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta and dualism premises of Samkhya–Yoga
school of
HinduHindu philosophy, sometimes referred to as Shaktadavaitavada
(literally, the path of nondualistic Shakti).[405][406][407]
Other influential ancient and medieval classical texts of Hinduism
such as the
YogaYoga Yajnavalkya,
YogaYoga Vashishta, Avadhuta Gita,
Markandeya PuranaMarkandeya Purana and
SannyasaSannyasaUpanishadsUpanishads predominantly incorporate
premises and ideas of
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta.[408][409][410]
Development of central position[edit]
Main article: Neo-Vedanta
Already in medieval times,
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta came to be regarded as the
highest of the Indian religious philosophies,[411] a development which
was reinforced in modern times due to western interest in Advaita
Vedanta, and the subsequent influence on western perceptions on Indian
perceptions of Hinduism.[33]
In contrast, King states that its present position was a response of
HinduHindu intellectuals to centuries of Christian polemic aimed at
establishing "
HinduHindu inferiority complex" during the colonial rule of
the Indian subcontinent.[412] The "humanistic, inclusivist"
formulation, now called Neo-Vedanta, attempted to respond to this
colonial stereotyping of "Indian culture was backward, superstitious
and inferior to the West", states King.
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta was projected
as the central philosophy of Hinduism, and Neo-
VedantaVedanta subsumed and
incorporated Buddhist ideas thereby making the
BuddhaBuddha a part of the
VedantaVedanta tradition, all in an attempt to reposition the history of
Indian culture. Thus, states King, neo-
VedantaVedanta developed as a reaction
to western
OrientalismOrientalism and Perennialism.[413] With the efforts of
Vivekananda, modern formulation of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta has "become a
dominant force in Indian intellectual thought", though
HinduHindu beliefs
and practices are diverse.[414]
Unifying Hinduism[edit]
Main article: Unifying Hinduism
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta came to occupy a central position in the
classification of various
HinduHindu traditions. To some scholars, it is
with the arrival of Islamic rule, first in the form of Delhi Sultanate
thereafter the Mughal Empire, and the subsequent persecution of Indian
religions,
HinduHindu scholars began a self-conscious attempts to define an
identity and unity.[415][416] Between the twelfth and the fourteen
century, according to Andrew Nicholson, this effort emerged with a
classification of astika and nastika systems of Indian
philosophies.[415] Certain thinkers, according to Nicholson thesis,
began to retrospectively classify ancient thought into "six systems"
(saddarsana) of mainstream
HinduHindu philosophy.[417]
Other scholars, acknowledges Nicholson, present an alternate thesis.
The scriptures such as the Vedas,
UpanishadsUpanishads and Bhagavad Gita, texts
such as
DharmasutrasDharmasutras and Puranas, and various ideas that are
considered to be paradigmatic
HinduismHinduism are traceable to being
thousands of years old. Unlike Christianity and Islam,
HinduismHinduism as a
religion does not have a single founder, rather it is a fusion of
diverse scholarship where a galaxy of thinkers openly challenged each
other's teachings and offered their own ideas.[417] The term "Hindu"
too, states Arvind Sharma, appears in much older texts such as those
in Arabic that record the Islamic invasion or regional rule of Indian
subcontinent. Some of these texts have been dated to between the 8th
and the 11th century.[418] Within these doxologies and records,
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta was given the highest position, since it was regarded
to be most inclusive system.[419]
HinduHindu nationalism[edit]
Main article:
HinduHindu nationalism
According to King, along with the consolidation of the British
imperialist rule came orientalism wherein the new rulers viewed
Indians through "colonially crafted lenses". In response, emerged
HinduHindu nationalism for collective action against the colonial rule,
against the caricature by Christian and Muslim communities, and for
socio-political independence.[420] In this colonial era search of
identity,
VedantaVedanta came to be regarded as the essence of Hinduism, and
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta came to be regarded as "then paradigmatic example of
the mystical nature of the
HinduHindu religion" and umbrella of
"inclusivism".[421] This umbrella of
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, according to
King, "provided an opportunity for the construction of a nationalist
ideology that could unite Hindus in their struggle against colonial
oppression".[422]
Among the colonial era intelligentsia, according to Anshuman Mondal, a
professor of Literature specializing in post-colonial studies, the
monistic
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta has been a major ideological force for Hindu
nationalism.
Mahatma GandhiMahatma Gandhi professed monism of
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta,
though at times he also spoke with terms from mind-body dualism
schools of Hinduism.[423] Other colonial era Indian thinkers, such as
Vivekananda, presented
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta as an inclusive universal
religion, a spirituality that in part helped organize a religiously
infused identity, and the rise of
HinduHindu nationalism as a counter
weight to Islam-infused Muslim communitarian organizations such as the
Muslim League, to Christianity-infused colonial orientalism and to
religious persecution of those belonging to Indian
religions.[424][416][425]
Swami Vivekananda[edit]
Main articles:
Swami VivekanandaSwami Vivekananda and
RamakrishnaRamakrishna Mission
A major proponent in the popularisation of this Universalist and
Perennialist interpretation of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta was Vivekananda,[426]
who played a major role in the revival of Hinduism,[427] and the
spread of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta to the west via the
RamakrishnaRamakrishna Mission. His
interpretation of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta has been called "Neo-Vedanta".
VivekanandaVivekananda discerned a universal religion, regarding all the apparent
differences between various traditions as various manifestations of
one truth.[428] He presented karma, bhakti, jnana and raja yoga as
equal means to attain moksha,[429] to present
VedantaVedanta as a liberal and
universal religion, in contrast to the exclusivism of other
religions.[429]
VivekanandaVivekananda emphasised nirvikalpa samadhi as the spiritual goal of
Vedanta, he equated it to the liberation in
YogaYoga and encouraged Yoga
practice he called Raja yoga.[430] This approach, however, is missing
in historic
AdvaitaAdvaita texts.[431] In 1896,
VivekanandaVivekananda claimed that
AdvaitaAdvaita appeals to modern scientists:

I may make bold to say that the only religion which agrees with, and
even goes a little further than modern researchers, both on physical
and moral lines is the Advaita, and that is why it appeals to modern
scientists so much. They find that the old dualistic theories are not
enough for them, do not satisfy their necessities. A man must have not
only faith, but intellectual faith too".[web 17]

According to Rambachan,
VivekanandaVivekananda interprets anubhava as to mean
"personal experience", akin to religious experience, whereas Shankara
used the term to denote liberating understanding of the
sruti.[122][432][433]
Vivekananda's claims about spirituality as "science" and modern,
according to David Miller, may be questioned by well informed
scientists, but it drew attention for being very different than how
Christianity and Islam were being viewed by scientists and
sociologists of his era.[434]
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan[edit]
Main article: Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, first a professor at Oxford University and
later a President of India, further popularized
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta,
presenting it as the essence of Hinduism.[web 18] According to Michael
Hawley, a professor of Religious Studies, Radhakrishnan saw other
religions, as well as "what Radhakrishnan understands as lower forms
of Hinduism," as interpretations of
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, thereby "in a
sense Hindusizing all religions".[web 18] To him, the world faces a
religious problem, where there is unreflective dogmatism and
exclusivism, creating a need for "experiential religion" and
"inclusivism".
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, claimed Radhakrishnan, best
exemplifies a
HinduHindu philosophical, theological, and literary tradition
that fulfills this need.[web 18][435][436] Radhakrishnan did not
emphasize the differences between Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism versus
HinduismHinduism that he defined in terms of
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, rather he tended
to minimize their differences. This is apparent, for example, in his
discussions of Buddhist "Madhyamika and Yogacara" traditions versus
the
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta tradition.[436]
Radhakrishnan metaphysics was grounded in
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, but he
reinterpreted
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta for contemporary needs and context.[web
18] He acknowledged the reality and diversity of the world of
experience, which he saw as grounded in and supported by the
transcendent metaphysical absolute concept (nirguna Brahman).[web
18][note 32] Radhakrishnan also reinterpreted Shankara's notion of
maya. According to Radhakrishnan, maya is not a strict absolute
idealism, but "a subjective misperception of the world as ultimately
real."[web 18][438]
Mahatama Gandhi[edit]
Gandhi declared his allegiance to
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, and was another
popularizing force for its ideas.[439] According to Nicholas Gier,
this to Gandhi meant the unity of God and humans, that all beings have
the same one soul and therefore equality, that atman exists and is
same as everything in the universe, ahimsa (non-violence) is the very
nature of this atman.[439] Gandhi called himself advaitist many times,
including his letters, but he believed that others have a right to a
viewpoint different than his own because they come from a different
background and perspective.[378][379] According to Gier, Gandhi did
not interpret maya as illusion, but accepted that "personal theism"
leading to "impersonal monism" as two tiers of religiosity.[439]
New religious movements[edit]
Neo-Advaita[edit]
Main article: Neo-Advaita
Neo-
AdvaitaAdvaita is a New Religious Movement based on a popularised,
western interpretation of
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta and the teachings of Ramana
Maharshi.[440] Neo-
AdvaitaAdvaita is being criticised[441][note 33][443][note
34][note 35] for discarding the traditional prerequisites of knowledge
of the scriptures[445] and "renunciation as necessary preparation for
the path of jnana-yoga".[445][446] Notable neo-advaita teachers are H.
W. L. Poonja,[447][440] his students Gangaji[448] Andrew Cohen[note
36], and Eckhart Tolle.[440]
Non-dualism[edit]
Main article: Nondualism
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta has gained attention in western spirituality and New
Age, where various traditions are seen as driven by the same non-dual
experience.[450] Nonduality points to "a primordial, natural awareness
without subject or object".[web 23] It is also used to refer to
interconnectedness, "the sense that all things are interconnected and
not separate, while at the same time all things retain their
individuality".[web 24]
Relationship with Buddhism[edit]
See also:
BuddhismBuddhism and
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta and
MahayanaMahayanaBuddhismBuddhism share similarities and have
differences,[451][452] their relationship a subject of dispute among
scholars.[453] The similarities between
AdvaitaAdvaita and
BuddhismBuddhism have
attracted Indian and Western scholars attention,[454] and have also
been criticised by concurring schools. The similarities have been
interpreted as Buddhist influences on
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, while others
deny such influences, or see them as variant expressions.[455]
According to Daniel Ingalls, the Japanese Buddhist scholarship has
argued that
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara did not understand Buddhism.[453]
Some
HinduHindu scholars criticized
AdvaitaAdvaita for its Maya and non-theistic
doctrinal similarities with Buddhism.[456][457] Ramanuja, the founder
of
VishishtadvaitaVishishtadvaita Vedanta, accused
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara of being a Prachanna
Bauddha, that is, a "crypto-Buddhist",[454] and someone who was
undermining theistic
BhaktiBhakti devotionalism.[457] The non-Advaita
scholar Bhaskara of the
BhedabhedaVedantaVedanta tradition, similarly around
800 CE, accused Shankara's
AdvaitaAdvaita as "this despicable broken down
Mayavada that has been chanted by the
MahayanaMahayana Buddhists", and a
school that is undermining the ritual duties set in Vedic
orthodoxy.[457]
A few Buddhist scholars made the opposite criticism in the medieval
era toward their Buddhist opponents. In the sixth century CE, for
example, the
MahayanaMahayana Buddhist scholar
BhavivekaBhaviveka redefined Vedantic
concepts to show how they fit into
MadhyamakaMadhyamaka concepts,[458] and
"equate[d] the Buddha's
DharmaDharma body with Brahman, the ultimate reality
of the Upanishads."[459] In his Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ,
BhavivekaBhaviveka stages a Hinayana (Theravada) interlocutor, who accuses
MahayanaMahayana Buddhists of being "crypto-Vedantins".[460][461][note 37]
Medieval era Tibetan Gelugpa scholars accused the
Jonang schoolJonang school of
being "crypto-Vedantist."[462][463][note 38] Contemporary scholar
David Kalupahana called the seventh century Buddhist scholar
ChandrakirtiChandrakirti a "crypto-Vedantist", a view rejected by scholars of
Madhayamika Buddhism.[464]
The
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta tradition has historically rejected accusations of
crypto-
BuddhismBuddhism highlighting their respective views on Atman, Anatta
and Brahman.[452]
Similarities with Buddhism[edit]
According to scholars, the influence of
MahayanaMahayanaBuddhismBuddhism on Advaita
VedantaVedanta has been significant.[457][465]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta and various
other schools of
HinduHindu philosophy share numerous terminology,
doctrines and dialectical techniques with Buddhism.[466][467]
According to a 1918 paper by the
BuddhismBuddhism scholar O. Rozenberg, "a
precise differentiation between Brahmanism and
BuddhismBuddhism is impossible
to draw."[466]
Both traditions hold that "the empirical world is transitory, a show
of appearances",[468][469] and both admit "degrees of truth or
existence".[470] Both traditions emphasize the human need for
spiritual liberation (moksha, nirvana, kaivalya), however with
different assumptions.[471][note 39] Adi Shankara, states Natalia
Isaeva, incorporated "into his own system a Buddhist notion of maya
which had not been minutely elaborated in the Upanishads".[466]
Similarly, there are many points of contact between Buddhism's
VijnanavadaVijnanavada and Shankara's Advaita.[473]
According to Frank Whaling, the similarities between
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta
and
BuddhismBuddhism are not limited to the terminology and some doctrines,
but also includes practice. The monastic practices and monk tradition
in
AdvaitaAdvaita are similar to those found in Buddhism.[457]
Dasgupta and Mohanta suggest that
BuddhismBuddhism and Shankara's Advaita
VedantaVedanta represent "different phases of development of the same
non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of
Sankara."[474][note 40] The influence of
MahayanaMahayanaBuddhismBuddhism on other
religions and philosophies was not limited to Vedanta. Kalupahana
notes that the
VisuddhimaggaVisuddhimagga of
TheravadaTheravadaBuddhismBuddhism tradition contains
"some metaphysical speculations, such as those of the Sarvastivadins,
the Sautrantikas, and even the Yogacarins".[477] According to John
Plott,

We must emphasize again that generally throughout the Gupta Dynasty,
and even more so after its decline, there developed such a high degree
of syncretism and such toleration of all points of view that Mahayana
BuddhismBuddhism had been Hinduized almost as much as
HinduismHinduism had been
Buddhaized.[478]

Gaudapada[edit]
The influence of Buddhist doctrines on
GaudapadaGaudapada has been a vexed
question.[479][480]
One school of scholars, such as Bhattacharya and Raju, state that
GaudapadaGaudapada took over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is
pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra)[481][note 41] and "that the
nature of the world is the four-cornered negation, which is the
structure of Māyā".[481][484]
Of particular interest is Chapter Four of Gaudapada's text Karika, in
which according to Bhattacharya, two karikas refer to the
BuddhaBuddha and
the term Asparsayoga is borrowed from Buddhism.[479] According to
Murti, "the conclusion is irresistible that Gaudapada, a Vedanta
philosopher, is attempting an Advaitic interpretation of
VedantaVedanta in
the light of the Madhyamika and Yogcara doctrines. He even freely
quotes and appeals to them."[295] However, adds Murti, the doctrines
are unlike Buddhism. Chapter One, Two and Three are entirely Vedantin
and founded on the Upanishads, with little Buddhist flavor.[295]
Further, state both
MurtiMurti and King, no
VedantaVedanta scholars who followed
GaudapadaGaudapada ever quoted from Chapter Four, they only quote from the
first three.[295][296] According to Sarma, "to mistake him [Gaudapada]
to be a hidden or open Buddhist is absurd".[485] The doctrines of
GaudapadaGaudapada and
BuddhismBuddhism are totally opposed, states Murti:[295]

We have been talking of borrowing, influence and relationship in
rather general terms. It is necessary to define the possible nature of
the borrowing, granting that it did take place. (...) The Vedantins
stake everything on the Atman (Brahman) and accept the authority of
the Upanishads. We have pointed out at length the Nairatmya standpoint
of
BuddhismBuddhism and its total opposition to the Atman (soul, substance,
the permanent and universal) in any form.
— TRV Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism[486]

Advaitins have traditionally challenged the Buddhist influence
thesis.[479] Modern scholarship generally accepts that
GaudapadaGaudapada was
influenced by Buddhism, at least in terms of using Buddhist
terminology to explain his ideas, but adds that
GaudapadaGaudapada was a
Vedantin and not a Buddhist.[479]
GaudapadaGaudapada adopted some Buddhist
terminology and borrowed its doctrines to his Vedantic goals, much
like early
BuddhismBuddhism adopted Upanishadic terminology and borrowed its
doctrines to Buddhist goals; both used pre-existing concepts and ideas
to convey new meanings.[478][451] While there is shared terminology,
the
AdvaitaAdvaita doctrines of
GaudapadaGaudapada and
BuddhismBuddhism are fundamentally
different.[295][487]
Differences from Buddhism[edit]
Atman and anatta[edit]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta holds the premise, "
SoulSoul exists, and
SoulSoul (or self,
Atman) is a self evident truth". Buddhism, in contrast, holds the
premise, "Atman does not exist, and An-atman (or Anatta,
non-self)[488] is self evident".[47][489]
In Buddhism,
AnattaAnatta (Pali,
SanskritSanskrit cognate An-atman) is the concept
that in human beings and living creatures, there is no "eternal,
essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman".[48]
Buddhist philosophyBuddhist philosophy rejects the concept and all doctrines associated
with atman, call atman as illusion (maya), asserting instead the
theory of "no-self" and "no-soul".[47][490] Most schools of Buddhism,
from its earliest days, have denied the existence of the "self, soul"
in its core philosophical and ontological texts. In contrast to
Advaita, which describes knowing one's own soul as identical with
BrahmanBrahman as the path to nirvana, in its soteriological themes Buddhism
has defined nirvana as that blissful state when a person realizes that
he or she has "no self, no soul".[48][491]
Some
Buddhist textsBuddhist texts chronologically placed in the 1st millennium of
common era, such as the
MahayanaMahayana tradition's Tathāgatagarbha sūtras
suggest self-like concepts, variously called Tathagatagarbha or Buddha
nature.[492][493] These have been controversial idea in Buddhism, and
"eternal self" concepts have been generally rejected. In modern era
studies, scholars such as Wayman and Wayman state that these
"self-like" concepts are neither self nor sentient being, nor soul,
nor personality.[494][495] Some scholars posit that the
Tathagatagarbha Sutras were written to promote
BuddhismBuddhism to
non-Buddhists.[496][497][498]
Epistemology[edit]
The epistemological foundations of
BuddhismBuddhism and
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta are
different.
BuddhismBuddhism accepts two valid means to reliable and correct
knowledge – perception and inference, while
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta accepts
six (described elsewhere in this article).[209][226][499] However,
some Buddhists in history, have argued that Buddhist scriptures are a
reliable source of spiritual knowledge, corresponding to Advaita's
Śabda pramana, however Buddhists have treated their scriptures as a
form of inference method.[500]
Ontology[edit]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta posits a substance ontology, an ontology which holds
that underlying the change and impermanence of empirical reality is an
unchanging and permanent absolute reality, like an eternal substance
it calls Atman-Brahman.[501] In its substance ontology, as like other
philosophies, there exist a universal, particulars and specific
properties and it is the interaction of particulars that create events
and processes.[502]
In contrast,
BuddhismBuddhism posits a process ontology, also called as "event
ontology".[503][502] According to the Buddhist thought, particularly
after the rise of ancient
MahayanaMahayanaBuddhismBuddhism scholarship, there is
neither empirical nor absolute permanent reality and ontology can be
explained as a process.[503][504][note 42] There is a system of
relations and interdependent phenomena (pratitya samutpada) in
Buddhist ontology, but no stable persistent identities, no eternal
universals nor particulars. Thought and memories are mental
constructions and fluid processes without a real observer, personal
agency or cognizer in Buddhism. In contrast, in
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, like
other schools of Hinduism, the concept of self (atman) is the real
on-looker, personal agent and cognizer.[506]
The Pali Abdhidhamma and
TheravadaTheravadaBuddhismBuddhism considered all existence
as dhamma, and left the ontological questions about reality and the
nature of dhamma unexplained.[503]
According to Renard, Advaita's theory of three levels of reality is
built on the two levels of reality found in the Madhyamika.[507]
Shankara on Buddhism[edit]
A central concern for Shankara, in his objections against Buddhism, is
what he perceives as nihilism of the Buddhists.[508] Shankara states
that there "must be something beyond cognition, namely a
cognizer,"[509] which he asserts is the self-evident Atman or
witness.[510] Buddhism, according to Shankara, denies the cognizer. He
also considers the notion of
BrahmanBrahman as pure knowledge and "the
quintessence of positive reality."[508]
The teachings in
BrahmaBrahma Sutras, states Shankara, differ from both the
Buddhist realists and the Buddhist idealists. Shankara elaborates on
these arguments against various schools of Buddhism, partly presenting
refutations which were already standard in his time, and partly
offering his own objections.[511] Shankara's original contribution in
explaining the difference between
AdvaitaAdvaita and
BuddhismBuddhism was his
"argument for identity" and the "argument for the witness".[512] In
Shankara's view, the Buddhist are internally inconsistent in their
theories, because "the reservoir-consciousness that [they] set up,
being momentary, is no better than ordinary consciousness. Or, if
[they] allow the reservoir-consciousness to be lasting, [they] destroy
[their] theory of momentariness."[513] In response to the idealists,
he notes that their alaya-vijnana, or store-house consciousness, runs
counter to the Buddhist theory of momentariness.[508] With regard to
the Sunyavada (Madhyamaka), Shankara states that "being contradictory
to all valid means of knowledge, we have not thought worth while to
refute" and "common sense (loka-vyavahara) cannot be denied without
the discovery of some other truth".[514]
Reception[edit]
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta is most often regarded as an idealist monism.[23][25]
According to King,
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta developed "to its ultimate extreme"
the monistic ideas already present in the Upanishads.[515] In
contrast, states Milne, it is misleading to call
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta
"monistic," since this confuses the "negation of difference" with
"conflation into one."[516]
AdvaitaAdvaita is a negative term (a-dvaita),
states Milne, which denotes the "negation of a difference," between
subject and object, or between perceiver and perceived. [516]
According to Deutsch,
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta teaches monistic oneness,
however without the multiplicity premise of alternate monism
theories.[517] According to Jacqueline Hirst,
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara positively
emphasizes "oneness" premise in his Brahma-sutra Bhasya 2.1.20,
attributing it to all the Upanishads.[518]
Nicholson states
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta contains realistic strands of
thought, both in its oldest origins and in Shankara's writings.[32]
See also[edit]

^ pg. 941 "Puruṣavāda appears a preferred terminology in the early
periods, before the time of Sankara."
^ Literally: end or the goal of the Vedas.
^ For an alternate English translation: Robert Hume, The Thirteen
Principal Upanishads, BU 4.3.32, Oxford University Press, page 138.
^ It is not a philosophy in the western meaning of the word, according
to Milne.[42]
^ Bill Clinton: "The buck stops here."
^
BrahmanBrahman is also defined as:

The unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is
all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this
Universe; that is the one supreme, universal spirit without a
second.[87][88]
The one supreme, all pervading Spirit that is the origin and support
of the phenomenal universe.[89]
The supreme self. Puligandla states it as "the unchanging reality
amidst and beyond the world",[90]
The Self-existent, the Absolute and the Imperishable.
BrahmanBrahman is
indescribable.[91]
The "principle of the world",[92] the "absolute",[93] the "general,
universal",[94] the "cosmic principle",[95] the "ultimate that is the
cause of everything including all gods",[96] the "knowledge",[97] the
"soul, sense of self of each human being that is fearless, luminuous,
exalted and blissful",[98] the "essence of liberation, of spiritual
freedom",[99] the "universe within each living being and the universe
outside",[98] the "essence and everything innate in all that exists
inside, outside and everywhere".[100]

^ It provides the "stuff" from which everything is made
^ It sets everything into working, into existence
^ Svarupalakshana, qualities, definition based on essence
^
Indian philosophyIndian philosophy emphasises that "every acceptable philosophy
should aid man in realising the Purusarthas, the chief aims of human
life:[112]

Dharma: the right way to life, the "duties and obligations of the
individual toward himself and the society as well as those of the
society toward the individual";[113]
Artha: the means to support and sustain one's life;
Kāma: pleasure and enjoyment;
Mokṣa: liberation, release.

^ The true Self is itself just that pure consciousness, without which
nothing can be known in any way.(...) And that same true Self, pure
consciousness, is not different from the ultimate world Principle,
Brahman (...)
BrahmanBrahman (=the true Self, pure consciousness) is
the only
RealityReality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark
of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not
sublimatable.[82]
^ "Consciousness",[136][web 2] "intelligence",[137][138] "wisdom"
^ "the Absolute",[136][web 2] "infinite",[web 2] "the Highest
truth"[web 2]
^ Puligandla: "Any philosophy worthy of its title should not be a mere
intellectual exercise but should have practical application in
enabling man to live an enlightened life. A philosophy which makes no
difference to the quality and style of our life is no philosophy, but
an empty intellectual construction."[139]
^ These characteristics and steps are described in various Advaita
texts, such as by Shankara in Chapter 1.1 of Brahmasutrabhasya,[146]
and in the
Bhagavad GitaBhagavad Gita Chapter 10
^ Example self-restraints mentioned in
HinduHindu texts: one must refrain
from any violence that causes injury to others, refrain from starting
or propagating deceit and falsehood, refrain from theft of other's
property, refrain from sexually cheating on one's partner, and refrain
from avarice.[148][149][150]
^ According to Hugh Nicholson, "the definitive study on the
development of the concept of vivarta in Indian philosophy, and in
AdvaitaAdvaitaVedantaVedanta in particular, remains Hacker's Vivarta.[190] To
Shankara, the word maya has hardly any terminological weight.[191]
^ and other sub-schools of
VedantaVedanta with the concept of Maya.[194]
^ Many in number, the
UpanishadsUpanishads developed in different schools at
various times and places, some in the Vedic period and others in the
medieval or modern era (the names of up to 112
UpanishadsUpanishads have been
recorded).[245] All major commentators have considered the twelve to
thirteen oldest of these texts as the principal
UpanishadsUpanishads and as the
foundation of Vedanta.
^ The
ŚrutiŚruti includes the four
VedasVedas including its four layers of
embedded texts – the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas,
and the early Upanishads.[246]
^ Nevertheless, Balasubramanian argues that since the basic ideas of
the
VedantaVedanta systems are derived from the Vedas, the Vedantic
philosophy is as old as the Vedas.[276]
^ Deutsch and Dalvi point out that, in the Indian context, texts "are
only part of a tradition which is preserved in its purest form in the
oral transmission as it has been going on".[278]
^ Bhartŗhari (c.450–500), Upavarsa (c.450–500), Bodhāyana
(c.500), Tanka (Brahmānandin) (c.500–550), Dravida (c.550),
Bhartŗprapañca (c.550), Śabarasvāmin (c.550), Bhartŗmitra
(c.550–600), Śrivatsānka (c.600), Sundarapāndya (c.600),
Brahmadatta (c.600–700),
GaudapadaGaudapada (c.640–690), Govinda
(c.670–720), Mandanamiśra (c.670–750).[267]
^ Nakamura notes that there are contradictions in doctrine between the
four chapters.[290] According to Murti, the conclusion from Mandukya
Karika is irresistible that
GaudapadaGaudapada is attempting an advaitic
interpretation of
VedantaVedanta school of
HinduismHinduism in the light of the
Madhyamika and Yogcara doctrines of Buddhism.[295] However, adds
Murti, the doctrines are unlike Buddhism. The first three chapters of
the Karika are founded on the Upanishads, with little Buddhist
flavor.[295] Chapter Four is unlike the first three, and shows
Buddhist terms and influence.[296] Further, according to Murti, and
Richard King, no
VedantaVedanta scholars who followed
GaudapadaGaudapada ever quoted
from Chapter Four of Karika, they only quote from the first
three.[295][296]
^ Sanskrit: श्री संस्थान
गौडपदाचार्य मठ, Śrī Sansthāna
Gauḍapadācārya Maṭha
^ According to both Roodurum and Isaeva,
Sureśvara stated that mere
knowledge of the identity of
JivaJiva and
BrahmanBrahman is not enough for
liberation, which requires prolonged meditation on this
identity.[337][347]
^ Sanskrit: श्री संस्थान
गौडपदाचार्य मठ, Śrī Sansthāna
Gauḍapadācārya Maṭha
^ According to Pandey, these Mathas were not established by Shankara
himself, but were originally ashrams established by Vibhāņdaka and
his son Ŗșyaśŗnga.[361] Shankara inherited the ashrams at
DvārakāDvārakā and Sringeri, and shifted the ashram at Śŗngaverapura to
Badarikāśrama, and the ashram at Angadeśa to Jagannātha
Purī.[362]
^ Sanskrit.org: "Advaitins are non-sectarian, and they advocate
worship of Siva and Visnu equally with that of the other deities of
Hinduism, like Sakti, Ganapati and others."[web 13]
^ Archeological evidence suggest that the
Smarta traditionSmarta tradition in India
dates back to at least 3rd-century CE.[383][384]
^ Practically, Shankara fostered a rapprochement between
AdvaitaAdvaita and
smarta orthodoxy, which by his time had not only continued to defend
the varnasramadharma theory as defining the path of karman, but had
developed the practice of pancayatanapuja ("five-shrine worship") as a
solution to varied and conflicting devotional practices. Thus one
could worship any one of five deities (Vishnu, Siva, Durga, Surya,
Ganesa) as one's istadevata ("deity of choice").[390]
^ Neo-
VedantaVedanta seems to be closer to Bhedabheda-
VedantaVedanta than to
Shankara's
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, with the acknowledgement of the reality of
the world. Nicholas F. Gier: "Ramakrsna, Svami Vivekananda, and
Aurobindo (I also include M.K. Gandhi) have been labeled
"neo-Vedantists," a philosophy that rejects the Advaitins' claim that
the world is illusory. Aurobindo, in his The Life Divine, declares
that he has moved from Sankara's "universal illusionism" to his own
"universal realism" (2005: 432), defined as metaphysical realism in
the European philosophical sense of the term."[437]
^ Marek: "Wobei der Begriff Neo-
AdvaitaAdvaita darauf hinweist, dass sich die
traditionelle
AdvaitaAdvaita von dieser Strömung zunehmend distanziert, da
sie die Bedeutung der übenden Vorbereitung nach wie vor als
unumgänglich ansieht. (The term Neo-
AdvaitaAdvaita indicating that the
traditional
AdvaitaAdvaita increasingly distances itself from this movement,
as they regard preparational practicing still as inevitable)[442]
^ Alan Jacobs: Many firm devotees of Sri
Ramana MaharshiRamana Maharshi now rightly
term this western phenomenon as 'Neo-Advaita'. The term is carefully
selected because 'neo' means 'a new or revived form'. And this new
form is not the Classical
AdvaitaAdvaita which we understand to have been
taught by both of the Great Self Realised Sages,
Adi ShankaraAdi Shankara and
Ramana Maharshi. It can even be termed 'pseudo' because, by presenting
the teaching in a highly attenuated form, it might be described as
purporting to be Advaita, but not in effect actually being so, in the
fullest sense of the word. In this watering down of the essential
truths in a palatable style made acceptable and attractive to the
contemporary western mind, their teaching is misleading.[443]
^ See for other examples Conway [web 19] and Swartz[444]
^ Presently Cohen has distanced himself from Poonja, and calls his
teachings "Evolutionary Enlightenment".[449] What Is Enlightenment,
the magazine published by Choen's organisation, has been critical of
neo-
AdvaitaAdvaita several times, as early as 2001. See.[web 20][web 21][web
22]
^ Nicholson: "a Hīnayāna interlocutor accuses the Mahāyāna
Buddhist of being a crypto-Vedāntin, paralleling later Vedāntins who
accuse the
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedānta of crypto-Buddhism."[460]
^ The
Jonang schoolJonang school was influenced by Yogachara and taught Shentong
Buddhism, which sees the highest Truth as self-existent.[462][463]
^
Helmuth von Glasenapp writes: "The Buddhist
NirvanaNirvana is, therefore,
not the primordial ground, the eternal essence, which is at the basis
of everything and form which the whole world has arisen (the Brahman
of the Upanishads) but the reverse of all that we know, something
altogether different which must be characterized as a nothing in
relation to the world, but which is experienced as highest bliss by
those who have attained to it (Anguttara Nikaya, Navaka-nipata 34).
Vedantists and Buddhists have been fully aware of the gulf between
their doctrines, a gulf that cannot be bridged over. According to
Majjhima Nikaya, Sutta 22, a doctrine that proclaims "The same is the
world and the self. This I shall be after death; imperishable,
permanent, eternal!" (see Brihadaranyaka
UpanishadUpanishad 4, 4, 13), was
styled by the
BuddhaBuddha a perfectly foolish doctrine. On the other side,
the Katha
UpanishadUpanishad (2, 1, 14) does not see a way to deliverance in
the Buddhist theory of dharmas (impersonal processes): He who supposes
a profusion of particulars gets lost like rain water on a mountain
slope; the truly wise man, however, must realize that his Atman is at
one with the Universal Atman, and that the former, if purified from
dross, is being absorbed by the latter, "just as clear water poured
into clear water becomes one with it, indistinguishably."[472]
^ This development did not end with
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta, but continued in
Tantrism and various schools of Shaivism. Non-dual Kashmir Shaivism,
for example, was influenced by, and took over doctrines from, several
orthodox and heterodox Indian religious and philosophical
traditions.[475] These include Vedanta, Samkhya,
PatanjaliPatanjaliYogaYoga and
Nyayas, and various Buddhist schools, including
YogacaraYogacara and
Madhyamika,[475] but also
TantraTantra and the Nath-tradition.[476]
^ It is often used interchangeably with the term citta-mātra, but
they have different meanings. The standard translation of both terms
is "consciousness-only" or "mind-only." Several modern researchers
object this translation, and the accompanying label of "absolute
idealism" or "idealistic monism".[482] A better translation for
vijñapti-mātra is representation-only.[483]
^ Kalupahana describes how in
BuddhismBuddhism there is also a current which
favours substance ontology. Kalupahanan sees
MadhyamakaMadhyamaka and Yogacara
as reactions against developments toward substance ontology in
Buddhism.[505]

Deutsch, Eliot (1969).
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedanta: A Philosophical
Reconstruction. Honolulu: East-West Center Press.
Mayeda, Sengaku (1992), "An Introduction to the Life and Thought of
Sankara", in Mayeda, Sengaku, A Thousand Teachings: The
Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, State University of New York City
Press, ISBN 0-7914-0944-9
Comans, Michael (2000), The Method of Early
AdvaitaAdvaita Vedānta: A Study
of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass
Rambachan, A. (2006). The
AdvaitaAdvaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity.
State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0791468524.
Sarma, Chandradhar (2007), The
AdvaitaAdvaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy,
Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120813120